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 -
-
-
‘There is no singular “willing” subject’ is the key here I think.
-
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).
-
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”
-
I think that’s a point L/R share and the U judgement of naivety comes from this trend towards consolidation being an open goal for the “forces” they say they’re opposed to. U/Acc is not wholly without praxis, but it’s on terms other to these.
-
So I is individualist? And I was preparing dinner for 20 mins and am now 3-4 threads behind, which have been doused with Reza, Hakker etc cannot keep up.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That sounds reasonable
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.