Acceleration, Adorno, JB Peterson, and Catholicism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 лют 2019
- Reposted with permission from the Parallax Views podcast by JG Michael. For many other talks like this one, find Parallax Views at parallaxviews.podbean.com, / viewsparallax and / parallaxviews . Big thanks to JG for his interest in my ideas, and for extracting these atypically coherent thoughts from me. JG's excellent questions helped me make connections I've never made in public before, which reminds me how these new media are still so poorly understood. For intellectuals, podcasts are first and foremost production technologies rather than distribution channels or influence mechanisms (as they are to business people and social climbers).
From Michael's notes: "...How Justin got into academia... accelerationism... Justin giving his definition of accelerationism and its take on modernity... the different branches of accelerationism - r/acc (right accelerationism), l/acc (left accelerationism), and u/acc (unconditional accelerationism)... criticisms of these lines of thought... main players within the accelerationist milieu such as Nick Land and Edmund Berger... Nick Land's dark accelerationist vision... the way in which religion can act as a social technology against these horrors... the Frankfurt School philosopher/sociologist Theodor W. Adorno, his critique of instrumental reason, and the influence Adorno's writing has had on Justin's thought... this leads Justin into making an unexpected comparison between Adorno and... Jordan B. Peterson... Justin's research into the political ideologies of Jordan Peterson's fanbase... Justin's research into political ideology and fragmentation... the central accelerationist concepts of "Exit" and "patchwork" in depth... why religion has become so important to Justin and specifically his renewed interest in Catholicism. How Justin's radical politics are connected to his own religious beliefs... Catholicism's often overlooked history of breeding radically emancipatory thinkers..."
I really like this. What I didn't understood is the point where you said that accelerationism is a view than helps you see beyond the left-right dichotomy. I see that you're personally interested in accelerationism, but I don't understand how one even "can be" an accelerationism. Is there any sort of active accelerationism that goes beyond writing articles on possible social setups and mixing in cyphterpunk aestetics? As far as I can see, to the extend that we discuss internet cultures beyond the left-right dichotomy, we do this just because we reflect intellectually about current streams of thought. Why is that at all an accelerationist perspective. Seems to me any person who can adopt a neutral view can come to that conclusion about what's going on.
‘Accelerationist’
Thanks for this comment. You can definitely get to a viewpoint beyond left and right through many paths. I only think accelerationism offers one path to that... I think your critique of Acc is right on. Typically it is pretty much just an aesthetic, but the thing is that - today - an aesthetic is a key ingredient in the production of whole new worlds (video games being a strong example, but internet theory circles are just a less developed form of the same thing...). So aesthetics are much more than mere aesthetics.
@@JustinMurphy I can see accelerationist aestetics as a magnetic talking ground for a proper philosphy in/of the future.
@@watcher8582 Lovely way to put it, "magnetic talking ground for a proper philosphy in/of the future." Indeed! This is why calling it mainly an aesthetic is not at all an insult.
Accelerationism to me is the signal that a.i. is coming and whichever brand of accelerationism you adapt is your own way of reacting to it.
Why is this so rockin'?
Since you mention not having read Stirner but being interested, here's my summary/take on it. Would like to know others perspectives:
So this is 170 years ago when Germany isn’t really Germany, you have Hegel (and e.g. Schopenhauer) lecturing about his dialectical logic and view of history, in Berlin, and there emerges the group of young Hegelians arguing with each other. Completely contrary to Hegels view on the state, but very much in line with his logic and methods, they (Marx, Feuerbach, Stirner, etc.) all start writing books (and being censored). In particular Feuerbach writing the The Essence of Christianity, in which - after Nietzsches death of god at the same time - he makes the ideal human get the centerstage. A proper humanism. Stirner writes his treaty of the self and what it means to own in this context (“The Unique one and his Property”.) The chapter structure parodies Feuerbach and the first dozen of pages of the book parodies Hegels perspective on the world. Stirner criticises that Feuerbach makes “the good human“ a new abstraction that merely replaces the perfect god Feuerbach wants to part with in his ideology. He takes that stance to the limit and demands to reject all such “fixed ideas”. Don’t say “I’m a vegetarian and so I CAN’T eat meat“, but instead just decide to consume whatever you want at the moment (and so e.g. always decide to not eat meat). Don’t set up rules for yourself. If someone is stronger than you he might take things from you and restrict you, but if you use your brain to set up a system of restrictions that you don’t allow yourself to break, then you’re spooked. Some naively think that the main point of Stirner is that "everything we do we do for ourselves" and "even when we are charitable, we do it ... because it will benefit us in some way", but that's at best a side-observation of his book. And for him the people who are egoistic but unconsciously do have a lot of work to do on themselves. Regarding rules, Stirner makes points along the lines of being permitted to pass a street at a green light is but a positive formulation of a restriction (you’re disallowed to cross the street when not green). So Stirner goes on to reject all rights as this kind of restrictions, including human rights and so on. He’s against the state of course (among many many things) and so his drinking buddy and contemporary, Marx, gets mad as this sort of individualism doesn’t go with Marxist projects. I’m not sure if one can grasp Stirners notion of self without a good conception of Hegel and he uses a lot of this "consume and produce yourself" speak that you find at the end of the Capital when Marx generalises consumption. Consume yourself is also where the nothing comes into play. Stirners "property" hinges on his theory of self and is thus also not an easy feat. So coming to Stirners notion of the self: Stirners “I” is neither material, or physical manifestation, nor some transcendental ideal or a kind of soul. Instead it’s defined as a sort of process. To describe it better, one must call out that this I is for sure not a property of yours (e.g. that you’re a Spanish dude, or that you’re athletic) nor is an identify (e.g. from how you dress or what you know, something performative or how people see you or you want to be seen), which is just another type of acquired property. The “I” is defined using the notion of owning, but it’s not defined by what one statically owns. In Stirner, you only ever truly own something when you have full power over it - and in particular if you have the power to let it go (you don’t own the boots of a police man you see on the street, and you also don’t own your child, because you wouldn’t discard it. Maybe your child owns you to a bigger degree than you own it.) So the unique I now is the process of steadily discarding (or consuming) all your properties, to let go of yourself, as well as to re-instantiating (new) properties, i.e. redefining what it is you own. The self isn't statically there, and it's not ever really "there" by definition of that flow. “The Unique one and his Property” is all about this empty sort of self and how it relates to things it can give away. Finally, Stirners "Union of Egoists". When Stirner moves away from talking about the unique individual and suggests a notion of union of such unique ones, this is only far down the book. Both communist and capitalist Anarchists have to selectively pick from Stirner. As if they'd take all of him to heart, to gather alliances, they'd probably have to argue all the spooky aspects of those movements away. His union is a collection of "conscious egoists", people who mutually and knowingly make use of each other. But unlike a state, to be a Stirnerian union, it must have the feature of being easily being broken, by it's participants. If it is to stay alive, it only does so by the steady renewal of all or a subset of the people involved.
Wow epic comment. Thanks so much.
The Young Hegelians were also divided into right (conservative, pro-Prussian) and left (essentially what you said).
This is the best synopsis of Stirner I have ever read. I'm going to screenshot this comment and take it as my property.
@@williamhad ha!
1:04:26min It is difficult to agree with that given what the people that design the algorithms for social media, and the internet have said. The web is almost at an oligopoly position, and what drives its growth, and form are the imperatives for capital accumulation not the growth of a type of intelligence that would overthrow it. The latter mentioned to at least have a clearer view as to the finite/macro entity that is pushing its growth, and direction. So, for example, Bill Gates's plans for education are to do away with public education and begin to ration it via the market system. The latter is a massive way to destroy minds. To exclude people from increasing and developing. His whole idea is how to make people regress, infantilize, and exploit them out of existence. And his groups of 1%ers are doing this at both levels. Preparing at the social/institutional level: type of education, and preparing the algorithms that define what you may learn once you sit in front of the screen. Again, the idea is to be able to isolate the forces that will undermine education, and the growth of intelligence so one may address them, and avoid depositing faith in the wrong plans, and strategies. Avoid addressing crucial things etc.
1:30:58min Yeah, but this requires an understanding of the system of production one finds oneself in, how does it limit you, what does it offer to you, how you may differ in the way in which you may acquire resources on a quoter by quoter basis to invest them in a way that allows for the growth on non-capitalist social relations, or, non-exploitative social relations.
You all may find Monthly Review´s "The Cultural Apparatus of Monopoly Capital" Vol 65 No3 July-August 2013 (for free) on their site of interest to you. Also the Marxist Project on youtube will also provide with good intros to Marx, as well as Richard Wolff lectures on youtube.
1:02:40min Yeah, but there must be a good reason as to why technology must not be studied as the output of a particular production system. It may be studied in a Heideggerian sense. In a wider more macro view, that is to say abstracting from the set of social relations that determine the type of technology, and its growth, but it does not improve the analysis as to how many choices exist, and how many problems (as well as to isolating its causes) is that way of producing technology bringing, and will bring. It just presupposed that the Pentagon, and Syllycon Vally (the centers of technological production), on a macro level, are, overall good. And good in the sense that they can be left onto themselves to let them grow in power. I am uncertain as to whether they can continue to grow, and exist as entities at the same time as allowing others to "exit the grid". The latter a very intelligible, and understandable impulse (why be an object of exploitation, and lose independence) but ultimately limited in its reactionary practices. The logic of capitalist grows will attempt to own whatever you may manage to gain as one "exits the grid" as it were. Hence capital must be addressed.
Justin, this is a very based corrective to many misconceptions surrounding ACC. For one, there's the Noys equivocations that use character flaws of the Italian futurists to poison the well ("D'Annunzio was scary and hated women, isn't that scary?"). And then there's a group of people trying to ascribe trans-humanism, which flies in the face of the Heraclitian poetics of the whole thing.
Also your digression on religion reminds me very much of Leo Naphta, from the magic mountain, probably the strongest imaginative understanding of the latent demoniac urges.
Ray Brassier gives a good critique of accelerationism and Land’s views
Where?
finally some fvckin darkwave
cursed title
I know I just never have the time to think up great titles. Give me a better one and I'll replace it!
1:0545min His definition of capitalism. No, that is false. Capitalism is a mode of production that uses the intellectual means of production (let us say intelligence, or, abstract labor) in order to use people as objects of exploitation to accumulate unearned income. So, if we look at capitalism´s relations to intelligence throughout history one will notice that they always rejected the idea of public education, are the leaders in defunding overall educational institutions for the public, and are the world-wide leaders in seeing/ and acting on education as something that must be privatized, and sold, and not a human right. Capitalism uses intelligence, in its most macro sense (abstract labor), in order to ultimately destroy the very same source of intelligence in the aggregate.I do not agree it is a good idea to deposit faith in capitalist social relations given its track record.
i think the interpretation of accelerationism as wanting to accelerate capitalism to its end point is completely wrong and dogmatic. we have no control over the processes, it’s happening wether we like it or not.