Which brings us to U/Acc, most thoroughly extrapolated by Garton, is quite simply Acceleration without Conditions. So the problem here lies in the end. For many U/Accers are - literally - communists and thus believe the end goal of U/Acc is Communism - in-keeping with Marx.
How is capital going to escape from a gulag? I jest, so where's the _point_ of disagreement, human action effecting possible future divergences?
-
-
only farmers ever went to gulags, tbf. anyway, the point of the disagreement is whether the question is "what should be done" or "what happened". u/acc aligns with the latter.
-
'Only farmers went to gulags?' I'd push Solzhenitsyn but I'm guessing you're on the 'his numbers are high' camp? So then zacc and uacc are the same, if the question is 'what happened?'
-
well, zacc is the proposition that the answer to what happened is "capital can't take care of itself".
-
We will have the answer to this in the next 20-50 years globally, and some places the answer is pretty clear...at least to me.
-
At least we got somewhere. The split is the age old question of humans having authority over their reality, free will. Henlo academy!
-
I think this is precisely it.
-
So in short, from uacc human action is tied to capital a priori?
-
I would say that humans have consistently over-estimated their level of conscious control. Almost to the point where we can formulate a definition of the human from this characteristic. "Human is the animal that believes itself to have a will"
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think so. At least for me. Antipraxis and all that. Cells don't get to choose much about the emergent organism. It's not the question of _if_ controlling a future is possible, it's the admission of the fact that this question is not applicable, in the u/acc case
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.