The Guattarian kamikaze mechanonaut, preprogrammed with enough Zen bullshit and political archaisms so that you know, even without a Voigt-Kampf, that this wasted rag just has to be human (war in the age of artificial stupidity), secretes enough digital immunosupressant to get into the alloflux coursing through the Varelian autopoietic isolate and burn it. Since high-level autopoietic systems “maintain their overall identity despite a constant turnover of their components” (Juarrero Roqu‚ 1985: 118-9), getting in was no problem at all: just hook up with the particle-flow and play dead. All the autopoet had to do was just take it literally. Literalization activates a retroviral neurophage, emitting a “hideous Word that eats the mind from the inside out. [A]n epileptic spasm that goes on and on until there’s nothing left at all….” (Gibson 1988: 210-211)
Daddy was darpanet…
“Are we to understand that the machine has just one father, and that it is born like Athena, springing forth fully armed from his virile head with a mighty war-shout?” (Deleuze & Guattari 1973: 468).
Graham Harman, collapse ii:
In the past century, the doctrine of Parmenides that being and thought are the same has been implied by Husserl, stated explicitly by Heidegger, and restated quite emphatically by Badiou. But this equation of being and thought must be rejected, since it leaves us stranded in a human–world coupling that merely reenacts the breakthroughs of yesteryear. Reviving the problem of causation means to break free of the epistemological deadlock and reawaken the metaphysical question of what relation means. Along with causation there is also the ‘vicarious’ part of the phrase, which indicates that relations never directly encounter the autonomous reality of their components. After thousands of years, ‘substance’ is still the best name for such reality. The widespread resistance to substance is nothing more than revulsion at certain inadequate models of substance, and such models can be replaced.
if non-philosophy can be contrasted to the postmodern pragmatist’s ’supermarket trolley’ approach to philosophy, where the philosophical consumer’s personal predilections provide the sole criterion for choosing between competing philosophies, and where the academy now figures as a sort of intellectual superstore, it is not as yet another theoretical novelty – the latest fad, the next big thing – but as a means of turning the practice of philosophy itself into an exercise in perpetual invention.
Is this true? “These gentlemen represent the future of thought, the destruction of phenomenology and the arrival of a dark new paradigm of scientific nihilism.”
[tags]everything is miscellaneous, or is it, scientific nihilism[/tags]
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
