In the Theory of Acceleration lectures, Land actually hesitates to embrace the idea that he is r/acc, arguing that 'right accelerationism' doesn't properly exist and emerges reflexively as a phrase only because left-accelerationism is invented.
-
-
Replying to @Moctezuma_III @parallaxoptics and
He goes on to express disbelief at what a right-accelerationist project would actually entail, and that he'd prefer accelerationism without political pre-conditions. As far as I know, it was from that discussion that the term 'unconditional acceleration' emerged.
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likes -
Replying to @Moctezuma_III @parallaxoptics and
So my suspicion of u/acc has generally been opposite of
@parallaxoptics (that the u/acc crowd are crypto-cathedralists), I've been concerned that the u/acc crowd are all Landian crypto-racists.3 replies 1 retweet 17 likes -
Replying to @Moctezuma_III @parallaxoptics and
is it still a suspicion?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @parallaxoptics and
The topic of race is largely missing from the u/acc blogosphere, that's bound to draw suspicion from both the left and right. But really, a philosopher's power to carry out genocide or achieve utopian multiculturalism are so slim... what does it matter?
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Moctezuma_III @cyborg_nomade and
It's absence is 'suspicious'.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @realMaxCastle @cyborg_nomade and
The idea that someone might not have a political opinion is unthinkable by many.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Moctezuma_III @cyborg_nomade and
The point is that political opinions are irrelevant.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @realMaxCastle @cyborg_nomade and
I agree, political philosophy is eclipsed by PR strategists. Philosophy's power to shape politics is limited. Philosophers should (lol) stay on the IS side of the IS/OUGHT divide. Plenty of room for imagining or predicting the future, but building it? doubtful.
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Moctezuma_III @realMaxCastle and
No philosopher of even minimal capability should be lending credence to the illusion of an "is/ought divide".
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes
... "We can think without having to build brains." -- Modernity says 'no'.
-
-
Replying to @Outsideness @realMaxCastle and
I'm not following the brain-building thing. It feels like so many of the left and right (and surely other more bizarre moral systems) waste their breath theorizing how the world ought to be and while greatly overestimating their ability to determine the future.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Moctezuma_III @realMaxCastle and
When -- as in any accelerationism -- a practically self-affirming positive cybernetic construct is the sole presupposition, how can anything like an is/ought distinction still be rigorously made?
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
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.