Maybe I should get my shit together and read Crypto-Current, but I'm also sceptical of this idea that acceleration is implied by the form of time, thus making capitalism "the transcendental". Whilst it's true that techno-economic progress provides directionality to …
-
-
Replying to @rob_mose @thewastedworld
I also have issues witht making capitalism the trancendental. But interested to see if
@qdnoktsqfr can shed any crisp, ruthless light on the matter?1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Sal100001 @rob_mose and
Anna Greenspan's PhD seems highly relevant here, although she will also recognize in her push for capitalism as a 'transcendental time machine' that both spheres need to be separated in the end IIRC. Not sure what she has to say for its teleology tho
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @chrish420 @Sal100001 and
KAP just seems to be making the Deleuzean point that entropy is a transcendental illusion—the question then being: what constitutes telos, right? (Sorry, sick and braindead).
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @qdnoktsqfr @chrish420 and
Relevant, from Crypto-Current: ‘Capital … is a path with firm direction, but without destination (*the path is the destination*). It exists only by perpetually overcoming itself. … Its sole product is immanence.’ http://www.ufblog.net/crypto-current-008/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @qdnoktsqfr @chrish420 and
And the Concept of Accelerationism lectures (via a critique of the L/Acc Manifesto for Accelerationist Politics):pic.twitter.com/XmmWTcf2nq
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @qdnoktsqfr @chrish420 and
Gee wiz! Did you transcribe the NCRP lectures? This stuff really throws me into the labyrinth. I've got my bearings now and I think this is doing something weird with the antinomy of freedom, where politics is seen as volition from the point of view of pre-critical empiricism.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @rob_mose @qdnoktsqfr and
So let's accept that the future is no less determined than the past, but isn't it still less conceptually *determinable* than the past? Can we really argue *a priori* that the consequences of political forces are negligible? Perhaps they are, but surely we need to wait and see?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rob_mose @qdnoktsqfr and
I also think we should be careful not to fall into dogmatism by supposing that such a hypothesis is foundational to Acc. In any event, I don't think it is, and I do wonder what NL would make of those claims now.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rob_mose @qdnoktsqfr and
Rob Retweeted Outsideness
I think this seems to suggest that Acc is indeed contingent on certain social and political conditions. If it is a question of the strength of capital's attractor, then surely that's empirical and not on the level of the a priori form of time?https://twitter.com/Outsideness/status/1100094615946813440 …
Rob added,
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
After stepping it down from Gnostic Singularitarianism for purposes of popular communication it looks like that (but at the cost of ultimate realism).
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.