Treading Carefully 0.1: Continuing from yesterday's thread on the definitions of the Acc strands, it was - roughly - agreed that the contention between the 2 currently deadlocked camps (U/Acc & R/Acc) is in actuality a question of free will -
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @meta_nomad
I think accelerationists reject free will across the board. Land is clear about this. There is no singular “willing” subject at the end of the day; free will is a false but useful assumption that simplifies communication.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @biodysphoria
> I think accelerationists reject free will across the board. One could put forth that it doesn't matter either way, we're not going to solve the problem of free will. So let's attend to our own camp's guidance.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @meta_nomad @biodysphoria
‘There is no singular “willing” subject’ is the key here I think.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @xenogothic @biodysphoria
Multiple wills taking 'different' willed routes converging on acceleration. U would immanentize all routes into the process, as it is the process. And R would allow for each singular will to be its own 'helmsman' (see Serres).
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @meta_nomad @xenogothic
I want to insist on r/acc not believing in “singular wills” in the final case. But maybe r/acc finds “singular wills” to be more useful as a lying abstraction; more emphasis on ““”praxis””” than “just let capital do its work and don’t interfere”
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Biographically speaking: I’m going to try hard to marry young and have a lot of kids to combat IQ shredder effect. Maybe U/acc thinks this is naive, idealistic, or autistic.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
it's just part of the process.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Well said
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.