*Also* note how by referencing 1) a popular film, 2) a popular anarchist attitude (fuck the cops!) he immediately tries to "hook up" to a specific subculture popular in the West today. This is what you'd do if you sought to establish a cult.
Exclusive focus on the secondary process leaves us closed to the unknown (or “completely unrecognizable”) possibilities lurking in the machinic unconscious, trapped in the death-bound individuated ego.
-
-
“We have reached the final chapter of being: The Human.” This is the rejection of difference, which is to say, nihilism. Good thing endless parochial humanism is impossible, on a physical level. As long as we have thermodynamics gradients, being will be changeable and insecure.
-
Some conments: 1) I am not interested in insulting you — I simply gave you my frank impression of thoughts running through my head reading a Nick Land essay.
-
2) I do not consider myself as placing too much emphasis on consciousness (of which Care is part of) — I am fully at ease with the materialist viewpoint that consciousness is an emergent phantom of some machinistic process
-
3) my problem is that of mutualism — it is pointless to care about something that 1) does not care about you 2) has no trace of you. E.g. children may not care about me that much — but they will still have my trace (you can interpret this genetically or spiritually whatever)
-
4) the what you call a primary machinistic process has a trace of me only insofar as it *carries a certain Form.* Once the primary process switches its Form to something different (full Capital sans biology or full machine consciousness sans biology) it goes through Looking Glass
-
The what I call Looking Glass is a boundary between different Forms of Being. Things on the other side are not guaranteed (very unlikely) to have meaningful Trace of things on our side since they become bound to very different laws.
-
5) so I have pretty much zero interest in caring about non-biological Forms. Why? Because I’m a being of biological mode of production. I have no interest in what happens beyond Looking Glass, and in fact I have a lot of interest in postponing the “rapture” if such is to occur.
-
6) it’s possible that what I call Rapture will entail some re-coding of my trace. In that case I might become interested in learning more about it. But from what I gather, Land fans look forward to it without having a faintest idea about the concrete form it will take.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
And yet, are we not phenomenologically "trapped" in the individuated ego, or at least beholden to the limits of our sensory organs?https://twitter.com/Locus_of_Ctrl/status/1012233300272766976 …
-
The individuated ego is good heuristic to describe the relatively autonomous human brain (when not on psychedelics). But non-individuated consciousness can exist if we can invent hardware for it to run on. And we can become free by dying--nothing is annihilated, only disorganized
-
Yes, this is the Jaynesian take: we can train ourselves to hear the voice of the Gods, if only a structure were in place to train us to hear Him. But as Jaynes describes, the only difference between this God and that God is legitimacy, necessarily granted by others...
-
Why would I pick a Landian God, worshipped by such a small population, when the Abrahamic Gods carry such greater weight? The reason would be if I felt uniquely sympathetic to their cause, which is itself ironically a choice that one can only make through the individuated ego.
End of conversation
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.