Nick Land recently went on the Theory Underground show and told people at various levels of philosophical mastery about how the human body is an inefficent mechanism for carrying brains around the solar system, and that eventually intelligence will rid itself of the human body in order to more efficiently scooter around the galaxy for questionable reasons.
I wonder what Heidegger would say about the technology stuff? I think he'd probably agree with much of what you say here. There's a sort of danger in getting caught up in the lure of technological thinking. You sum it up nicely when you say that it appears "cool and goth". Surely there's a way of thinking this age of technology which doesn't just lapse into this, as you say, "ridiculous" (I really loved that you used this word here too, it's apt!) view of technology.
I just think its funny that Nick Land believes that technology is going to indefinitely reproduce itself in successful bouts of overcoming its limits and expanding. He equates Capital with the self expansion of technology which (he acknowledges) would require that Capital is able to overcome its limits of being rooted in human labor and fuse the real production of technology fully with the logic of financial acceleration, which, despite appearances, is a crazy gamble. It's much more likely for things to stagnate or collapse. He even recognized some of his idealism in his turn to NRx in which he realized that this could not occur from the autonomous functions of the free market but only from some powerful actor.personifying the function of high rates of real reinvestment. He somehow expects that these powerful actors will continue to push this forward towards their own dissolving. In reality as soon as this becomes a problem for their self reproduction (as happened in the '70s) they probably will simply start to try and self-insulate and maintain ruling power without resting on the mess of constant technological dynamism which is inherently destabilizing. It's just a total fantasy, a potential possibility.
He is absolutely exhausting, much like looking after a toddler is exhausting and boring. I haven't said anything 'cause why bother. History will put him and his ilk in his place.
Are you taking into consideration the inevitable upcoming of AI+meme+crypto hyperstitions that will basically create the bedrock for semiotic capitalism? Once there, capital will just be a way to aggregate intelligence and narratives. Who says that at one point in the future the best way to accumulate intelligence (capital) won't be a narrative that maximises the distribution of intelligence across space and time creating a sort of cybernetic hive mind hybrid between humans and AI?
I would definitely say your ascetic contemplation of such processes are harmless, but if they were really popular I would say fetishizing the processes of a glorified Amazon or tiktok algorithm is not very ambitious of a job for a philosopher.
It's not glorification of a social network algorithm. It's understanding how such algorithms (and generative AI, and all future instances of AI) are changing the way we see ourselves and the way capitalism work. Generative AI is a representation of the collective unconscious - digitalised into billions of data fragments - that for the first time has actually become an entity in itself which we can interact with and that it can also interact with itself (see infinite backrooms experiment). It's going to change everything.
A calculator does not have subjectivity/awareness of itself and isn't a life. In cybernetic theory, things can move "like a body" with certain tendencies like a hyperunconscious, but there are still irreducible real subjectivities within that. Unless it has subjective aliveness, it is a calculator or simply even a social tendency being confused with an alive subject. The subject of history as a conscious idea (aka a tendency acting like a body but is not a body) like "proletarian" still needs the alive things within it, even with its technologic appendages.
I wonder what Heidegger would say about the technology stuff? I think he'd probably agree with much of what you say here. There's a sort of danger in getting caught up in the lure of technological thinking. You sum it up nicely when you say that it appears "cool and goth". Surely there's a way of thinking this age of technology which doesn't just lapse into this, as you say, "ridiculous" (I really loved that you used this word here too, it's apt!) view of technology.
Am I hearing a request for a piece on Heidegger's take on technology? :-)
I think so!
Great critique, thank you for sharing
I just think its funny that Nick Land believes that technology is going to indefinitely reproduce itself in successful bouts of overcoming its limits and expanding. He equates Capital with the self expansion of technology which (he acknowledges) would require that Capital is able to overcome its limits of being rooted in human labor and fuse the real production of technology fully with the logic of financial acceleration, which, despite appearances, is a crazy gamble. It's much more likely for things to stagnate or collapse. He even recognized some of his idealism in his turn to NRx in which he realized that this could not occur from the autonomous functions of the free market but only from some powerful actor.personifying the function of high rates of real reinvestment. He somehow expects that these powerful actors will continue to push this forward towards their own dissolving. In reality as soon as this becomes a problem for their self reproduction (as happened in the '70s) they probably will simply start to try and self-insulate and maintain ruling power without resting on the mess of constant technological dynamism which is inherently destabilizing. It's just a total fantasy, a potential possibility.
What do you have against goths dude, at least the girls can be pretty hot
I’m citing it as the redeeming factor!
He is absolutely exhausting, much like looking after a toddler is exhausting and boring. I haven't said anything 'cause why bother. History will put him and his ilk in his place.
He makes being a meat vehicle from a machine entelechy sound so goddamn appealing in the worst way.
https://fatherofzoomers.substack.com/p/naked-and-afraid?r=jejuu
Are you taking into consideration the inevitable upcoming of AI+meme+crypto hyperstitions that will basically create the bedrock for semiotic capitalism? Once there, capital will just be a way to aggregate intelligence and narratives. Who says that at one point in the future the best way to accumulate intelligence (capital) won't be a narrative that maximises the distribution of intelligence across space and time creating a sort of cybernetic hive mind hybrid between humans and AI?
I would definitely say your ascetic contemplation of such processes are harmless, but if they were really popular I would say fetishizing the processes of a glorified Amazon or tiktok algorithm is not very ambitious of a job for a philosopher.
It's not glorification of a social network algorithm. It's understanding how such algorithms (and generative AI, and all future instances of AI) are changing the way we see ourselves and the way capitalism work. Generative AI is a representation of the collective unconscious - digitalised into billions of data fragments - that for the first time has actually become an entity in itself which we can interact with and that it can also interact with itself (see infinite backrooms experiment). It's going to change everything.
A calculator does not have subjectivity/awareness of itself and isn't a life. In cybernetic theory, things can move "like a body" with certain tendencies like a hyperunconscious, but there are still irreducible real subjectivities within that. Unless it has subjective aliveness, it is a calculator or simply even a social tendency being confused with an alive subject. The subject of history as a conscious idea (aka a tendency acting like a body but is not a body) like "proletarian" still needs the alive things within it, even with its technologic appendages.