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.
-
-
Replying to @LoCtrl
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LoCtrl
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)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @LoCtrl
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @LoCtrl
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @LoCtrl
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @LoCtrl
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 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @LoCtrl
IOW, I do not see going through the Looking Glass as a form of transcendence — I see it as a form of erasure. So I’m against it. But I’m not against it *too much* because I have a hunch that those who go through it will become irrelevant to my world (rather than threatening it).
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @LoCtrl
Do you not care about things that will affect you, even if you cannot affect them?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
-
-
Replying to @eigenrobot
actually entropy wont affect me at all, that's a problem for my kids/their kids to figure out
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show 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.