Chaos Patch (#9)

Having received a request for a new Chaos Patch (“because ferrets”) I will immediately comply.

(Try not to go too insane. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law (roughly speaking).

I’ve got nothing right now, except to say that I greatly enjoyed Dallas Buyers Club, which might (hopefully) outrage some people.

… and one more thing, anyone looking for a hit of something seriously alien could take a look at this, from Planet Communism, recommended to me (by Javier) over at the nice place. I’m already hooked. A taste:

How can we justify the destruction of the capitalist mode of production by the proletariat? This cannot be done in a narrowly economic context. Marx never faced this problem because he was absolutely certain that the proletarians would rise against capital. But we have to confront this problem if we are going to emerge from the impasse created by our acceptance of the theory according to which the production relations come into conflict with the development of the productive forces (forces which were postulated to exist for the human being, since if this were not the case, why would human beings rebel?) If the productive forces do not exist for human beings but for capital, and if they conflict with production relations, then this means that these relations do not provide the proper structure to the capitalist mode of production, and therefore there can be revolution which is not for human beings (for example, the general phenomenon which is called fascism). Consequently capital escapes.

ADDED: Getting fangy with #Accelerate (just in case anybody here cares about communism today).

March 6, 2014admin 83 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Admin

TAGGED WITH :

83 Responses to this entry

  • Mark Warburton Says:

    I’m yet to see the Dallas Buyers Club. The rebirth of Matthew mcConaughey puts it firmly in the to-watch list. Speaking of which, have you started watching True Dectective yet, Nick? It’s spell-binding!

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’m looking forward to it (ardently) — hasn’t arrived in the Shanghai DVD market yet.

    [Reply]

    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    >DVD

    What is this, 5 years ago?

    https://thepiratebay.se/search/true%20detective/0/99/0

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    OK, I’m just on the brink of that switch. Haven’t had a set up that streamed Internet content to a nice screen up to this point. Do I at least get a few badly needed reactionary-merit points for that?

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    Really enjoyed Dallas Buyer Club. I was bracing myself for a sickly, Spielberg-esque oscar vehicle. It was a lot less emotive-hooks-for-the-win than expected.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 6th, 2014 at 5:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ex-pat in Oz Says:

    TrueD is without exception the best entertainment produced in possibly my lifetime. It has single handedly flipped the moral universe we have become accustomed to in pop culture. I have no idea how it was greenlit but concur– McC is superb (as is the entire cast for that matter) and TD is prolly the real reason he won the oscar. I never want it to end.

    Highly suggested.

    [Reply]

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    Apparently there has been some controversy regarding the writer’s penchant for Ligotti, Cioran et al – uncredited lines taken straight out of books. I really got the sense of cosmic pessimism in McC character. Sad that there is only one ep left. Hopefully there will be a second series – one 10-12 eps long.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 6th, 2014 at 7:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    My daughter brought home a team of ferrets for Spring break. How do I train them?

    [Reply]

    David T Reply:

    Send them to New York
    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/22/nyregion/court-upholds-giuliani-era-ban-on-pet-ferrets.html

    ARCHIVES

    Court Upholds Giuliani-Era Ban on Pet Ferrets
    By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
    Published: June 22, 2002
    EMAIL
    PRINT

    The Bloomberg administration has not adopted every position held by the Giuliani administration, but it does agree that ferrets should not be kept as pets. Now it has won its case in court.

    The State Supreme Court in Manhattan upheld a provision of the city health code that prohibits the possession of ferrets by private individuals. (Pet ferrets are still permitted elsewhere in the state.)

    The Bloomberg administration inherited the lawsuit, which was filed in 1999 after the Board of Health under Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani added ferrets — which are related to weasels — to the list of dangerous wild animals banned as pets. The new administration agreed that ferrets posed a threat in a densely populated city of multiple dwellings. So it opted not to settle the suit.

    Mr. Giuliani had taken on ferret lovers with some ferocity, once even suggesting that someone devoted to ferrets needed therapy. The city’s ferret lovers turned out to be very vocal and organized, even offering a pro-ferret license plate frame on the Web at NYCFerrets.com.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 7th, 2014 at 1:07 am Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    @admin: Don’t know if you caught this one. Just be Reasonable – Science, Toeing the Line, White Supremacy … and Robert Henryson

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    P.S. I find his conversation in the comments with Nathaniel Campbell to be exemplary of what I’ve seen elsewhere. It’s easy to dismiss this use of guilt-by-association as denialist or defensive. I left a very polite and sensible comment and it was disappeared (as usual), so that shows some evidence about any true openness to engagement (i.e. there is zero) as opposed to groupthink-supportive posturing.

    That being said, the justifiable anti-purge ethos around these parts, and the commendable reluctance to actively manage and police the audience, has the unfortunate side effect of attracting plenty of actual kooks.

    For example, I look at the comments one my site – some of which I’ve had to manage – and there is a lot of frankly moronic hatred of blacks or Jews – the kind of hatred that is both self-aware and self-bemused by its own hate. These are the fair-weather ‘friends’ of HBD, here out of confirmation bias that supports their bigotry, not out any genuine respect for genetic science.

    I don’t think stepping away from the kooks would make any difference with regards to progressive attitudes (they’ll always find something to make the same lazy smears), or that it would help to prevent ‘tarnishing the brand’ of NRx/DE (too late for that, at least in their eyes).

    But I find I actually don’t want to associate with these types either, mostly because they send me stupid, hateful screeds via email that waste my time and cause me to put up mental filter shields.

    What to do? I don’t know. I’m thinking about it though.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “What to do?” — Unhelpful response: try to write less lucidly. Every time one of your sentences gives someone a splitting migraine, you get one less thuggish idiot visiting and commenting on your site.

    More seriously, I really don’t know. The difference between harsh realism and abusive bigotry isn’t an easy one for some people to grasp. I think this is part of a far more general problem, to do with enthusiastic but low-competence folks who want to pitch in to the war but don’t really have a role. I’m blessed beyond all possibility of understanding here, of course, but reactionary Twitter is pretty sad.

    [Reply]

    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    >I don’t think stepping away from the kooks would make any difference with regards to progressive attitudes (they’ll always find something to make the same lazy smears), or that it would help to prevent ‘tarnishing the brand’ of NRx/DE (too late for that, at least in their eyes).

    For mainstream progs? Yeah, we are not progs and that’s that. Nothing can be done on that front.

    However for high-powered intellectual independents of the type we’d like to see more of, unpleasant racists are almost certainly a turn-off.

    Maybe this is what progressive purge-justification feels like on the inside, but it seems like there is a big difference between purging well argued content and purging uncivilized behavior. The former is lethal to civilization, the latter, critical.

    Purge anyone who fails to meet basic standards of civility and value-add.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    “Purge anyone who fails to meet basic standards of civility …” –

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFQ2x-CeA2E

    admin Reply:

    Yes, that’s roughly the point we’re at right now …

    nydwracu Reply:

    ‘Neoreaction’ seems to have already eternal-Septembered — a formal institution will, unfortunately, be needed, one that can hand out badges that not just any idiot with a Disqus account can get.

    In an ideal world, that would also solve the guilt-by-association problem, but this is not an ideal world, so it won’t.

    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    @nydwracu

    hardly unfortunate. A formal institution can accomplish a lot of good things besides orchestrating the inquisition.

    Maybe it should start with a “who’s who” site listing notables who have earned the privilege of participating in NR, something like “The Social Register”. I’m thinking just an independent site (neoreactionaries.com is available) listing brief profile information on neoreactionaries, their interests, links to their works, etc. Should probably be invite only with invites reasonably tightly controlled, with only the intellectual core having invite privileges. Like Radish’s cards but more formal and serious, and a bit more inclusive.

    Could be expanded to other good things from there.

    Again I think there are two guilt-by association problems: high-quality people who are allergic to people who froth at the mouth, and low quality people who froth at the mouth at anything resembling non-progressivism. Only the former matters, and the solution is simply to exclude, or rather don’t invite in the first place, the morons who drag down the level of discourse and drive away high-quality people.

    Posted on March 7th, 2014 at 1:51 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    True Detective is anthology, it’s going to be different stories and characters – some repeats – each season.

    Frankly looks to me like Hart & Cohle just went kamkaze, 1 episode left.

    Easily the best entertainment movie or TV in my lifetime.

    It’s not cop show, it’s “Event Horizon” applied to Detective Work.

    [Reply]

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    “it’s “Event Horizon” applied to Detective Work.” THIS!

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 7th, 2014 at 2:11 am Reply | Quote
  • j. ont. Says:

    Nick, as NRx (where did the “x” come from anyways?) gets more and more attention, either within the mainstream press or within the philosophical blogosphere, it will no doubt be asked again, as it has been asked before: “what happened to the left-wing Nick Land?” While this is a somewhat coarse question, and certainly the answers are sprinkled throughout the net in fragments, I do wonder if it would be easier for you to write something on the subject.

    Thus far the voice of Outside In and Urban Future has been less self-oriented—and with good reason—but I don’t think it would be unacceptable to hear a bit about how you got to where you are now. It might also serve as a persuasive element in itself. Just a thought.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The ‘x’ comes from ‘rxnry’ — now fixed with the Twitter hash #NRx.

    Getting autobiographical indulges the delusion of self — so best avoided I think.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    If you like the delusion of self, you’re gonna fucking love True Detective Cohle.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    I think this is a misguided question.
    I don’t think Admin changed that much, as a lot of people make it out to be (has he really changed at all?). From what I have read ( based on both the old essays and recent blogging activity) the core philosophy of accelerationism is still there, intact. It hasn’t changed at all. Remember, Land was not very appreciated by the leftist academia even during his “leftist” days. And for a good reason. He was never a genuinely “leftist” philosopher (if such a term is even adequate). Left-wing philosophical frameworks were just a tool, a means to an end. The only thing Admin ever cared about, and the only thing he still cares about is accelerationism (and everything this term entails). I think he just thrashed leftism when he realized it was no longer capable in any way advancing towards the ends he desired.

    I might of course be completely wrong on this assesment (and about all of this in general, maybe you did suffer some form of a catharsis, mr. Land), but isn’t this what “Critique of Transcendental Miserablism” is all about?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Trawling garbage off the sea-floor (early 1990s and before) brings up some pretty freaking moronic leftish gibberish — but your basic narrative seems right.

    [Reply]

    Igitur Reply:

    > Getting autobiographical indulges the delusion of self

    This is a t-shirt phrase if I’ve ever seen one. I’m even changing my signature at that PKI forum to this.

    > freaking moronic leftish gibberish

    There’s some extent to which academic leftism is mere jargon and wordplay without political import. (To misquote some of that gibberish, it’s quite clear that Derrida is no werewolf). The whole kantian/patriarchal exogamy business — I don’t think there’s anyone who would mistake you for a feminist even then. That’s just flexing muscles.

    You have a following that appreciates how you could flex’em even then, but will weigh you on the same scale they use for Brassier, Negarestani and so forth.. And a following that’s intrigued for what you can bring to a New (mostly anglophone) Right, but that will put you on the same scale as Anissimov.

    Eh, they say Magnus Carlssen is a great poker player. It’s a living.

    j. ont. Reply:

    Perhaps I was too imprecise in my wording—an acknowledgment of the validity of this narrative (which has been described here in the past, and which has been my impression as well) is probably enough anyways. But I maintain that, if attention grows (as many here seem to hope it will), this will become more of a topic. But meh.

    Alex Reply:

    It’s fascinating. Accelerationism as the thread running from revolutionary leftism to neoreactionary technocommercialism via Bataillean materialism and insurrectionary cybergothic. If a Singularity is the destination, this one appears to differ notably from that proposed by mainline extropians’ soggy meliorism. Dr Land seems to envisage humanity being replaced altogether rather than merely augmented, which I suppose means he wants to destroy the world. Only Mark Shea can stop him.

    [Reply]

    Kevin C. Reply:

    It seems to me at least that Singularians center upon a modification of Voltaire’s “Si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer“: God does not exist, therefore we have to invent him. For Yudkowsky’s cult, the core concern is that the Deus ex Machina be an all-loving, all-forgiving tolerant Universalist Buddy-Christ type God (and thus the angst at rediscovering Pascal’s Wager). Mr. Land, on the other hand, seems to be seeking an Old Testament wrathful Sky(net) Father who will smite us all for our manifest sins.

    [Also, note his repeated comments, particularly in responses to Handle, about how the bulk of the West is unsalvageable, and the vast majority of humanity useless impediments to his vision of (technology and capitalism centered) Progress. Thus, the need for Exit, so that elites like himself can flee to Elysium free from the vile masses (or any noblesse oblige to such irredeemable scum). VXXC is right as to the “character” of many “neoreactionaries”.]

    Alex Reply:

    It seems to me at least that Singularians center upon a modification of Voltaire’s “Si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer“: God does not exist, therefore we have to invent him. For Yudkowsky’s cult, the core concern is that the Deus ex Machina be an all-loving, all-forgiving tolerant Universalist Buddy-Christ type God (and thus the angst at rediscovering Pascal’s Wager). Mr. Land, on the other hand, seems to be seeking an Old Testament wrathful Sky(net) Father who will smite us all for our manifest sins.

    That’s an interesting way of looking at it. The limp atheist cliche that man makes gods in his own image incontestably applies whenever he rejects the real thing. That said, the Landian superintelligence is surely too alien to be wrathful. Ostensibly at least, it lacks either a divine or satanic solicitude for our welfare.

    Also, note his repeated comments, particularly in responses to Handle, about how the bulk of the West is unsalvageable, and the vast majority of humanity useless impediments to his vision of (technology and capitalism centered) Progress. Thus, the need for Exit, so that elites like himself can flee to Elysium free from the vile masses (or any noblesse oblige to such irredeemable scum). VXXC is right as to the “character” of many “neoreactionaries”.

    Well, judging a man’s character by his ideology is a delicate business, particularly when it’s filtered through internet argy-bargy. FWIW, the ‘elitism’ strikes me as singularly free of haughtiness or snobbery. I confess what I find disconcerting is the (controlled) vivacity with which so radical an antihumanism is expressed. Appalling it may be, chilling it isn’t. At any rate, it’s surely an uncommon privilege to be able to observe such a lively and penetrating intelligence at work — even if one chooses, in Dr Brassier’s words, to “detest the rhetorical animus”.

    Kevin C. Reply:

    @Alex

    “That said, the Landian superintelligence is surely too alien to be wrathful. Ostensibly at least, it lacks either a divine or satanic solicitude for our welfare.”

    I recall once reading the difference between traditional horror and cosmic horror explained as: Satan is evil, but he still cares about each human soul; while Cthulhu can destroy humanity and never even notice. So not Old Testament Sky(net) Father, but Mecha-thulhu. If anything, this makes the antihumanism even more stark.

    So, a progressive realizes that the truth of HBD means that their particular vision of Progress is incompatible with the bulk of humanity. If he then choose Progress over any loyalty to culture (or even species), what do you call him? I’d say that anyone who elevates Progress to such an antihuman extreme cannot be rightly labeled anything other than progressive, but apparently (at least in Mr. Land’s case) the answer is “neoreactionary.”

    Alex Reply:

    I recall once reading the difference between traditional horror and cosmic horror explained as: Satan is evil, but he still cares about each human soul; while Cthulhu can destroy humanity and never even notice.

    One would therefore expect Satan to be an enthusiastic promoter of cosmic horror. (Cui bono.)

    If he then choose Progress over any loyalty to culture (or even species), what do you call him? I’d say that anyone who elevates Progress to such an antihuman extreme cannot be rightly labeled anything other than progressive

    My understanding is that a progressive, be he ever so illiberal (eg authoritarian, elitist, racist), would be concerned with the progress of at least some humans, considered as an end in itself. (Case in point: “Barring extinction-level events and other global disasters, accelerating technological progress will almost certainly give rise to recursively self-improving superhuman intelligence sometime during the first half of the 21st century. This birth and inevitable ascendancy of what will essentially be an alien, vastly superior species is sometimes called the Singularity, for like the inside of a black hole it is a great unknown; a warped alternate reality where normal rules no longer apply. Beyond the technological event horizon could lie either everything or nothing; heaven or hell. For better or worse, the old world will be gone forever, and life as we know it will be over. Instead of passively awaiting, unconditionally welcoming, or mindlessly opposing this radical socio-technological phase shift which, without a doubt, is both the greatest threat and opportunity mankind has ever faced, we should try to harness the awesome power of nanotechnology, AI, genetic engineering, and other advanced technologies for our benefit. We must enhance our minds, transcend our bodies, and become the Singularity. From a survivalist point of view, this is the only rational strategy.”)

    Someone who sees humanity as being, at best, a disposable rocket-stage would be a new type of revolutionary.

    Alex Reply:

    (Of course a dimbulb liberal, for whom liberalism is always the Latest Thing, might call such a person reactionary — “reactionary” here being a snarl word for “illiberal”.)

    Traditional horror — reaction — Counter-Enlightenment. Cosmic horror — neoreaction — Dark Enlightenment …?

    Alrenous Reply:

    Satan cares deeply about you personally. He might wish you ill, but only because it’s important to him that ill happens to you.

    The cosmic horror recognizes your true importance, causing narcissistic injury.

    Alex Reply:

    The cosmic horror recognizes your true importance, causing narcissistic injury.

    A balloon expands in a vacuum. A sense of cosmic insignificance might tempt one to see oneself in inflated heroic terms as a wanderer striding among mountaintops, gazing fearlessly into abysses, inhaling the rarified air of harsh reality while the cowardly rabble of the plains huddle together in their security blankets far, far below …

    Narcissism will find a way.

    [The New Atheists discover the Neo-Reaction. Satan exhales a cloud of fragrant cigar smoke.]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Can a blind man really be said to have ‘discovered’ an elephant, when he thinks it is a rope?

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    This sub-thread crystallizes something I’ve been thinking for a while, which is that some strains of neoreaction are possibly the next stage in the evolution of progressivism. Not just an offshoot, but the next stage. In fact, the ultimate stage. Where mankind itself becomes the wrecker and saboteur that must be put down for the good of the Future.

    Alex Reply:

    @Alrenous

    Funny thing is, some Nu Atheist rhetoric approaches DE — amid bantering Cthulhu references they sink their fangs into the Christian religion’s pathetic sentimental anthropocentrism … African apes … pale blue dot … illusion of contra-causal free will …

    Then they complain about the Christian religion’s inhumane callousness … AIDs in Africa … overpopulation … rape victims denied abortions … Latin American caudillos …

    @ Lesser Bull

    Motus in fine velocior

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    @Alex,
    your suggestion gave me literal shivers. Should I call them traditional or cosmic?

    It has a fine Calvinist flavor. The smug self-assurance of predestined election was never the core of Calvinism. The core of Calvinism was the insistence on God as transcending every human calculation, every human concept of right and wrong, and human self-interest. “Though He slay me, yet will I love God.” There has always been something self-abnegating about the best progressivism, since the vanguards have never been assured they would reach the Future themselves, and often knew they would not and maybe even could not by definition.

    Alrenous Reply:

    @ Alex
    I like your perspective. Must quibble with details though.

    Pale blue dot makes consciousness more valuable, not less. It is…misleading…to say emeralds are a negligible percentage of the Earth’s crust.

    I killed and resurrected my belief in free will today. A free will act has the property of having no well-defined defined probability. Contracausal events have strictly 0% probability.

    As to callousness, it’s the pot calling the kettle black. The kettle is indeed black, but…

    Alex Reply:

    @ Lesser Bull:

    There has always been something self-abnegating about the best progressivism

    “Best” is finely judged. Probably what gives it its hideous strength. The various fascisms do glorious self-sacrifice well but see humility as a stumbling-block. That’s a weakness.

    @ Alrenous:

    Pale blue dot makes consciousness more valuable, not less

    Infinitely precious in an utterly insignificant kind of way.

    Contracausal events have strictly 0% probability.

    Aquinas would agree.

    Posted on March 7th, 2014 at 3:33 am Reply | Quote
  • Paul Ennis Says:

    You guys might enjoy my interview about the philosophical angle of the show: http://www.vulture.com/2014/02/philosopher-assesses-true-detective-characters-rust-cohle-marty-hart.html

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 7th, 2014 at 1:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • josh Says:

    Since you quote Crowley, what do you dark technoreactionaries think about occultism?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If we told you, we’d have to kill you.

    [Reply]

    josh Reply:

    I don’t mean, ‘are you guys Thelamites?’ or something. I mean, where do you place things like Theosophy and its offshoots in the history of ideas. I’m always shocked by the number of important historical figures with ties to these seeming wackadoos. Do you see this as more crypto-Calvinism, a reaction to crypto-Calivinism, something new under the sun, unimportant, left or right, etc.?

    [Reply]

    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    >theosophy

    admin Reply:

    Good questions.

    Annie Besant is a fun place to start — plenty of opportunities for triggering among just about every strand of NRx. There’s a great novel in there (which I haven’t seen, if it exists).

    Erik Reply:

    Theonomist reactionary commentary from the sideline: “Occultism” is a vague term at least partly concerning a real, serious things that is dangerous to dabble in.

    Some of the books by Lewis (Screwtape Letters, Hideous Strength) have elements that highlight the Janus-faced danger of occultism: the risks of becoming a materialist who denies demons or a magician who bargains with demons, both courting danger in their own way. Many forget that demons can think for themselves, have their own agenda, and are watching you, meaning they have your psych profile. Dealing with such entities is generally not safe. The worst idea, that the demons try to promote, is becoming a materialist magician, a sort of New Age guru who thinks, as I gather many self-help publishers of the bad sort do, that their interactions with preternatural entities can be explained by “cosmic forces” or “the Law of Attraction” or such twaddle.

    Demons are unlikely to appear with horns and a tail anywhere. To paraphrase Einstein, demons are subtle and very malicious. For a simple hypothetical situation illustrating how much mischief one can get up to with a little hidden information and the ability to give bad suggestions, imagine a demon which peeks at a winning lottery ticket, and stealthily whispers in a poor man’s ear “It’s your lucky day”, so the man spends his last coin on a lottery ticket and wins five hundred quid. Convinced that this was his own idea and that he can now detect “lucky days”, the man is later influenced to take out a loan for some other lottery, loses, and winds not merely broke but deep in debt.

    If you consider what behavior is intuitively advisable for avoiding this sort of shit, you may notice that Applied Demonology (ha) is close to basic rationalism: believe in the material when it can be demonstrated material, avoid people vaguely claiming to connect your chakras to the Soul of the Universe for guidance, and estimate the value of lottery tickets based on what generally happens with lottery tickets, not on whether you feel lucky or whether you won last time.

    You’re welcome. Just another side benefit provided by Christianity, much like our monotheism laid the basis for science. If you believe in a bunch of gods all squabbling with one another, where the sea god tried to steal the tree god’s crown so the tree god had the wind god beat up the sea god, predicting natural phenomena seems like a task involving a theopsychologist, a theoanthropologist, a chronicler tracking the grievances, and perhaps a few offerings to get the particular god of something on your side. Once it becomes clear that there’s a single God who made wind and water both, it’s easier to expect that wind and water will behave in accordance with the laws laid down by God, and now it’s a matter of figuring out what those laws are.

    I am, of course, generalizing and simplifying horribly for the internet comment section. Read a book on the topic if you want a book on the topic. 🙂

    But seriously, don’t do occultism. At best it’s an amusing waste of time, which you could get with a computer game. At worst it’s an opportunity to take some of the most terrible advice in the world.

    Since I’ve given demonological advice here, I might as well append another suggestion on topic: Don’t try untrained exorcisms, either. The “good” outcome is that you end up yelling lines from horror movies at psychiatric patients who just need valium. The “bad” outcome is that you end up trying to have argument with an entity that has access to a complete list of every argument you’ve ever been in, while you can’t even see its facial expression, and if anyone else is present, things can get far worse as the demon’s host begins destroying your reputation by publicly listing your misdeeds then adding a few unverifiable accusations that sound worryingly plausible in light of the verifiable ones it’s just given.

    To round out a list which seems like it should have three wackadoo-sounding items, be careful about mysticism too. One metaphor is that it’s like fasting, another is that it’s like staring at the sun. Not as dangerous as occultism or exorcism, but still risky. Perform mysticism only under the guidance only under the guidance of experienced, stable mystics. This requires good judgment, for which there is little that can substitute.

    Posted on March 7th, 2014 at 2:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • pseudo-chrysostom Says:

    A japanese hosso monk and zen master was teaching a class on Lao Ze, known riddler

    ”Before the class begins, you must adopt a meditation stance and reverence Lao Ze and accept that he was the most enlightened being the world has ever known, even greater than Heraclitus!”

    At this moment, a brave, phenomenologist, continental German philosopher who had published over 1500 papers on hermeneutics and understood the necessity of an ontological characterization of human beings and fully supported all deconstruction of metaphysical thinking stood up and held up a rock.

    ”Does this rock have buddha nature?”

    The arrogant professor smirked and smugly replied “mu, you stupid Westerner”

    ”Wrong. An existential analysis of the rock reveals that it has no language and therefore it is not opened to the disclosure of Being . If it was neither Dasein or not Dasein and its ontological nature, as you say, was indeterminate… then its rock-Being should be a concern to it!”

    The monk was visibly shaken, and dropped his bonsai and copy of Tao te Ching. He stormed out of the room reciting those obsolete buddhist sutras. The same sutras buddhists recite for the “souls of the deceased” when they jealously try to devalue responsibility over their finitude from the deserving authentic Daseins. There is no doubt that at this point our monk, Gautama Boddhidarma, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than an inauthentic onto theological thinker. He wished so much that he had a non metaphysical characterization of truth to reconstruct his ontology over a groundless ground, but he himself had petitioned against it!

    The students applauded and all registered with the university of Freiburg that day and accepted Nietzsche as the last and greatest western crypto metaphysician. An eagle named “Ereigenis” flew into the room and perched atop an ancient oak and shed a tear on the now standing reserve of timber. The Ister was read several times, and Being itself showed up and spread existential angst across the country.

    The monk lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the technocratic plague nihilism and was tossed into the impossibility of possibilities for eternity.

    Ex nihilo omnia
    p.s. It rests by changing.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    [*Applause*]

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    [more applause]

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    yah applause.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 7th, 2014 at 3:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    Nick Land, An Experiment in Inhumanism

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 7th, 2014 at 6:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    777

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Impressive sleuthing!

    If engineered (by AC) it’s a remarkable oddity — perhaps a cryptic promotion tool for the AQ.
    If not — then it’s scarcely distinguishable from a miracle.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 7th, 2014 at 8:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    Thanks, Spandrell! Great ideas. There was some appropriate PVC pipe in my garage.

    My wife really had me going for a minute there. She told me that a group of ferrets is called a “democracy”, not a “team”. It turns out that the correct term is “business”. This leaves the “friend or foe” question unresolved.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Happy to help!

    English term for animal groupings never fail to mystify me. I wonder when that tradition started.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    I heard Shakespeare made a few up for the obvious reasons and then making shit up became a thing.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 8th, 2014 at 12:49 am Reply | Quote
  • Kevin C. Says:

    @Alex

    “Someone who sees humanity as being, at best, a disposable rocket-stage would be a new type of revolutionary.”

    Exactly. And is not a revolutionary (of any type) the opposite of a reactionary?

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    I don’t think that’s an altogether unfair assessment. The technocommercialists are something of an anomaly in this regard. A theonomist or ethnonationalist sees the Cathedral as a runaway horse that’s bolted from the lush pastures of the organic society and is galloping madly towards a cliff. The task is to regain control of the damn thing and turn it around; failing that, to jump off before it plunges over the cliff and begin the long weary trudge home*. A technocommercialist sees the Cathedral as a lazy stubborn mule content to grow fat in the pastures of demotist mediocrity. The job is to gee up the dumb brute so it can take them to a future workshop where it will be rebuilt as a gleaming mecha-mule. But whereas an authoritarian progressive like a transtopian envisages himself sitting proudly atop the new creation, our host — the radical antihumanist — goes one further and sees the rider as redundant under the Rule of the Mule.

    None of this means the neoreactionary project is a waste of time, although perhaps it does render the vision of a ‘trichotomocracy’ problematic.

    *(How this is to be achieved, and where “home” is, is the fracture-line between Christian and pagan traditionalists.)

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Kevin, your metaphysics of time are so unutterably crude it’s almost cute.

    [Reply]

    Kevin C. Reply:

    Well, my degree is in Physics without the “meta”. And as for most of “philosophy” in general, I think Mel Brooks’ “History of the World Part I” put it best:
    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4VD8uvgec&w=560&h=315%5D

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 9th, 2014 at 4:38 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Oh dear if you want to deny the delusion of self, Detective Cohles interrogation with CID.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 9th, 2014 at 11:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Just thought I’d advertise this for anyone interested in the London area. Detlev is in NIck’s resources and he is having a resurgence as of late.

    Detlev Schlichter “Econonomics and the a priori: In defense of Ludwig von Mises”
    Libertarian Alliance Meetup
    Tuesday, March 11, 2014
    7:30 PM
    Current place: Current place: The Institute of Education, off Russell Square – student bar, Room S14, Thornhaugh Street WC1B 5EA
    WC1B 5EA
    London

    [Reply]

    Rasputin Reply:

    Do you need to book for this, or can you just turn up?

    [Reply]

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    It was via the meetup.com site. I don’t think they’re super strict on it, but do a google search to confirm.

    [Reply]

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    “in March Detlev Schlichter will talk on “Econonomics and the a priori: In defense of Ludwig von Mises”, Everyone is welcome and admission is free, so do come along”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You have to blog about it.

    Posted on March 10th, 2014 at 5:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    @Mark Warburton

    Seconding all the praises already said about True Detective.
    Watched three episodes today and so far it’s brilliant.

    [Reply]

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    I’ve seen the whole thing now. Interesting that this series will be an anthology. Will be difficult to top the first season.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 10th, 2014 at 9:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    Rodney Stark on the Crusades:
    http://www.researchonreligion.org/historical-topics/stark-on-the-crusades-2

    History is nothing but propaganda and everything I know is wrong.

    The third of his podcasts on The Triumph of Christianity said similar things about the Spanish Inquisition. According to Start, everything I know about the Spanish Inquisition is English propaganda, dating back to wars between England and Spain.

    Also, there was a discussion a while back about the Crucifixion as a “killer app” that forces people to look at scapegoating through the eyes of the scapegoat. That third Stark podcast, together with the podcast with Robert Priest on witchcraft accusations makes a very similar point. According to Priest, there are some cultures where, if something bad happens to you, you say, “I must have done something wrong to piss God off.” In other cultures, you say, “One of my neighbors must be practicing witchcraft. I need to find out who it is and kill him.” Christianity historically has opposed the latter as theologically incorrect.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 11th, 2014 at 12:55 am Reply | Quote
  • James James Says:

    @Mark Warburton Thanks for this. I’ve went to AnomalyUK’s talk to them a couple of years ago, and I used to go to the Libertarian Alliance annual conferences. Like Hoppe, Sean Gabb (one of Nick’s “favorite people in the world”) seems almost neoreactionary.

    I want to organise some sort of neoreactionary meetup in London, but it seems there aren’t many of us here.

    [Reply]

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    @Mark Warburton

    Alas, family commitments. Sending the old man off – back to the Faroes.

    [Reply]

    James James Reply:

    Hopefully with higher quality questions than last night.

    [Reply]

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    Was it poor then? Give us the lowdown.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 11th, 2014 at 9:23 am Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    By the way, so much for China leading HBD research:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/shuchingjeanchen/2014/03/03/china-cracks-down-on-dna-testing-2/

    So much for China leading anything at all really. It’s over.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Saw that, and it it’s depressing — but you could be over-reacting. There’s no sign of BGI being pushed dramatically off-course.

    (The ban on DNA testing is a response to some bullshit ‘gene-therapy’ scam that involves being injected with stem cells by cowboy entrepreneurs linked to the PLA — so it’s nothing to do with eugenics-phobia.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 12th, 2014 at 7:31 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    @Admin:

    Is there a webbed Moral Philosophy 101 article you could steer me towards, describing the major schools of thought? A Venn diagram would be ideal. I am trying to relate snippets that I have picked up at places like EconTalk:

    moral sympathy
    contractarianism
    deontology
    consequentialism
    utilitarianism

    Utilitarianism is obviously a subset of consequentialism, but the boundaries of the former are unclear to me. Is there something major missing here?

    The context for this is Handle’s discussion of Arthur Leff’s Memorandum from the Devil.
    http://www.xenosystems.net/chaos-patch-8/#comment-33086

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Mainstream philosophy is a mess. One way it’s a mess is such a diagram should exist – the need is obvious, the work not difficult – but does not.

    The author of such a diagram would learn how much they owe to other thinkers. Indeed rather than describing their beliefs they could simply list the names that thought them first. And that would be a grave narcissistic injury.

    Similarly, consequentialism, virtue ethics, and deontology can all be united without difficulty. It’s so obvious that I really shouldn’t have been the first to do it, yet I have seen no hint of it elsewhere.

    What I do for now is just slap it into google and sometimes add ‘stanford’ if necessary.

    Alternatively you can just ask me, I have infinite patience for this stuff. Downside being I’m an eccentric.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Thanks. I do want to put virtue ethics on the list. I look forward to trying your patience later.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 15th, 2014 at 6:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • nyan_sandwich Says:

    Lovecraft describes progressivism:

    That cult would never die till the stars came right again, and the secret priests would take great Cthulhu from His tomb to revive His subjects and resume His rule of earth. The time would be easy to know, for then mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy. Then the liberated Old Ones would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth would flame with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom. Meanwhile the cult, by appropriate rites, must keep alive the memory of those ancient ways and shadow forth the prophecy of their return.

    http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/cc.aspx

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 20th, 2014 at 7:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Sergio Guadaro Says:

    Recently I was watching some powerful people with growing concern.

    I’m a straightforward person; I don’t expect or want to be told pretty lies. The situation is very simple. I don’t like any of these people at all, to the extent that I would be indifferent on an emotional level if they actually were wiped out by some horde of malcontents. I don’t believe that they are cultured, or civilised; they strike me as shit that naturally rises to the top of a shitty system. That goes for their employees too. Nonetheless, I am merely a critic, or aspiring critic, in an infantile culture who is neither equipped nor remotely inclined towards political violence.

    The problem is that, whereas initially I believed their fuss about “single panes” being shattered, at this point I no longer regard them as capable of rational diplomacy. It might seem oh so clever to make light of the police state, abuse of power, and big political lies but after a point, the total inability to be sincere makes these people seem worthless and sub-human. “Ha ha, I’m a police state”; “You’re leaning on one pane of glass“. Sorry, but these things don’t go together. I’m very much inclined to ignore any of these po-faced, unsubstantiated claims from now on.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 2nd, 2014 at 5:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • nyan_sandwich Says:

    Admin, You’ve mentioned autonomous capital recently. Have you read Paul Christiano’s rough model of the singularity?

    https://workflowy.com/shared/15df86ce-1b8e-57ca-dbb2-30a42d949a59/

    https://ordinaryideas.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/some-rambling-ai-prognostication/

    I think this is what convinced MIRI to take seriously the idea that intelligence explosion might not be a local FOOM

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 2nd, 2014 at 8:10 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment