Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

Absolutely agree. Normative logic and/or ethics are never a bad thing; they can lead us to quantifiable solutions to real-world problems. We just always have to realize that these situations only make logical sense within a specific context, and that there's always an exception to our solutions even within the given context.

Logic really is only useful when critiquing the authenticity and rigor of an argument. Total logic is nothing but tautology (that might be a hyperbole, but the idea is the same). The development of knowledge can't be construed as an equation.

 

[Dak]

http://www.fastcodesign.com/3032463/what-is-google

But all of this is not simply a grandiose interpretation of Google's ideas. Google's ideas are actually that grandiose. Duarte points out that soon, our objects will reshape themselves--MIT’s Inform comes to mind--and at this point, Google’s big Material Design play can break through the glass of smartphones, tablets, and watches. Hardware and software will meld together, allowing interaction designers to step in and really work their magic. The object will become the interface, and the interface will become the object. In Duarte's mind, one can see Material Design powering a living infrastructure in a world where every conceivable surface glows, shifts, and ripples, quite literally reshaping the way we communicate, learn, work, and live. Whether we're interacting with a phone, a home, or a watch, Google will fulfill our needs ergonomically.

 

[Dak]

On/Off Switch for Consciousness (potentially) discovered.

 

[Einherjar86]

Very intriguing. I'll be interested to hear about further research, but I'm somewhat skeptical that a definitive "switch" for consciousness can actually be isolated.

Land recently wrote a very good summary of True Detective's importance for contemporary pop culture:

Has there ever been a TV series with a density of high-culture references comparable to this? Outside in is extremely biased on the question, since it largely shares the same reading list, and some of the links are closer still. Cohle is the closest thing ever heard on popular media to the voice of our civilization’s night.

http://www.xenosystems.net/darkness-yeaah/

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Oh nice

What does he mean by "The next step into abstract horror demands a non-subjective abyss." isn't that a contradiction in a sense? the abstract being non subjective I mean... or is that the point/am I missing the point

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

 

[Einherjar86]

Oh nice

What does he mean by "The next step into abstract horror demands a non-subjective abyss." isn't that a contradiction in a sense? the abstract being non subjective I mean... or is that the point/am I missing the point

I'm not sure how it's contradictory; would you mind expanding on that? The way I see it, the concrete would entail subjectivity while the abstract rids itself of it.

And as far as I can tell, he's suggesting that a true plunge into desolate, absolute horror requires the "integral obscurity" afforded by reality disengaged from conscious thought. He's saying that horror, at its source, derives from the possibility of a position from which no human perspective exists - the erasure of the human. Consciousness remains a lure of the transcendental, a reminder of the meaningful script; I think Land wants to demolish the spiritual fixtures of meaning entirely.

EDIT: love Ligotti

Those who contest demoralization as the inexorable way of universal deliverance have failed to see what is before them. They have lagged behind in the evolutionary ideal of our species. That ideal is a beneficial mutation. … Such has been the stance of all mutant liberators by demoralization who have ever lived. As one, their voices have spoken of an end-point to the organic horror. None has ever been fully heard or impeccably followed. They have merely shown the way. This way has always been implicit in their ideal. Closer it draws with the appearance of the demoralized greater in number and more clear-eyed in purpose. This is the way has always been implicit in their ideal. Closer it draws with the appearance of the demoralized greater in number and more clear-eyed in purpose. This is the way of the future. All who do not know the way, or who refuse it, will be denied the faintest glimpse of the absolute of an anesthetized future. They are reprobate losers waiting only to be declared as such by tomorrow’s demoralized mutants. So it will be. We are each either among the demoralized showing the way to a future of eternal nightmare, or we are losers celebrating our moment in hell.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I was just confused, it went over my head. I think you explained it well.

 

[Dak]

Demoralization as deliverance from what? Using "universal" in philosophy universally hints at ignorance So Nietzschean, all this talk of losers and their betters.

Writing of this nature reminds me of ocean waves.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think you're just offended that he called you a loser.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Ein, what the hell is he (Ligotti) talking about!? In simple English for the love of god!

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, it's important to remember that Ligotti writes fiction, not philosophy. Philosophy is obviously a part of his work, but he writes horror fiction first and foremost, and excerpts such as the one above are fictional renderings of a version of nonexistent philosophy.

So when we read Ligotti, I think it's important to read his text as hypothetical alternatives to "regular" philosophy. His is the opposite of Enlightenment, a kind of pseudo-Landian vision of the future that posits extinction as the ideal of human evolution. The fictionality of this vision derives from its emphasis on "ideals" and "universals." It mirrors Brassier's philosophy of extinction, in which extinction is not an ideal, but simply a logical correlate and component of human survival; its only goal and justification.

Ligotti absolutizes the logic of extinction into an evolutionary ideal.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Well in that context it makes more sense now.

I just started reading NRx stuff and some of it is truly batshit but these dudes are obviously very smart and make some great points. I don't really understand all this crap about women though, I feel like I'm talking to my grandpa.

 

[Einherjar86]

Their opinions on women and blacks (racial differentiation in general, really) are rather idiotic. The model of approach to society and capitalism is somewhat profound, however (or at least, Nick Land's approach is; can't speak for all his cronies).

 

[Dak]

Unfortunately the intellectual competition on sex and race isn't better. There is the tendency towards causal claims on the NRx/HBD side and a (selective) denial of any sort of qualitative or quantitative difference on the other....except when politically useful.

"There's basically no such thing as race, which is why blacks need affirmative action." is much more tolerable than mistaking correlation for causation. Ironically, HBD inherently agrees that many (not all) minorities need affirmative action - just not that society is benefited by AA.

 

[Einherjar86]

I know you think that, but the NRx side is almost certainly far more ridiculous. Any difference between races measured by intelligence tests is so minuscule as to be negligible, and the test itself is constructed according to parameters that favor a specific educational exposure, which a large portion of blacks simply haven't had due to mitigating historical circumstances.

 

[Dak]

I don't think your avg NRxer is looking only at IQ scores. They are going to look at total tech/social global development and shall we say "urban trends", and colonial/slavery effects is seen as enhancing their argument, not hurting it. What is also overlooked is these are only positions on group probability, not on individuals. NRx manifests as practical, not idealistic. The minority "thug" might be one because history/oppression, but you still won't leave your door unlocked.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think your avg NRxer is looking only at IQ scores. They are going to look at total tech/social global development and shall we say "urban trends", and colonial/slavery effects is seen as enhancing their argument, not hurting it. What is also overlooked is these are only positions on group probability, not on individuals.

The emboldened phrase doesn't make sense; if HBD is a genetic argument, then historical circumstances don't matter. Even if they're claiming that the tendency exists and historical conditions can have measurable effects, that still implies that a genetic disposition toward unintelligence exists in certain racial groups, relative to whites. Furthermore, and most importantly, they purport to lay claim to a variety of intelligence that is uniformly and qualitatively better than any other (as though this is even possible). The only way to logically and practically enforce organization - social, political, economic - according to degrees of intelligence is to adhere to a framework of intelligence that must, by definition, be exclusive. There is nothing wrong with this in principle; but when history blatantly demonstrates that the ownership of the means of production lies with a specific racial demographic, it becomes impossible to justify segregation based purely on an arbitrary intelligence quotient. Other factors must come into play.

This feeds into the argument on group probability. It might be practical; but again, that's only within a specific historical context. The research/evidence on genetic disposition toward unintelligence has proven so slight as to be negligible, and all its considerations favor economically successful and acceptable behavior (gangland drug lords might be incredibly intelligent and business-savvy as far as their own prospects are concerned, but this doesn't ingratiate them to the legal working class).

Practicality can be dangerous when it attempts to justify the dismissal of an entire group of people because, all things considered, more of them will end up as dumb criminals anyway.

 

[Dak]

What I meant is that colonialism is seen as an obvious example of general superiority. Counter arguments about guns and germs and steel also only serve to reinforce rather than rebut.

Again, the entire group is dismissed in general, generally. Pretty sure I read Land stating that individuals demonstrating x/y/z, from [disadvantaged] minority groups would still be accepted. Just that he doesn't expect that to happen with any sort of regularity. I included [disadvantaged] because Ashkenazis are not, by purely IQ and economic standards (although I think the total history of the Ashk. exposes a potentially significant weakness in the NRx conception of superiority).

Also, new blog.

Edit:

if HBD is a genetic argument, then historical circumstances don't matter.

History both affects genetic propagation and determines/evidences value.*

 

[Einherjar86]

What I meant is that colonialism is seen as an obvious example of general superiority. Counter arguments about guns and germs and steel also only serve to reinforce rather than rebut.

Superiority as spiritually (or in some way teleologically) ordained versus plain dumb luck. That's the difference.

Again, the entire group is dismissed in general, generally. Pretty sure I read Land stating that individuals demonstrating x/y/z, from [disadvantaged] minority groups would still be accepted. Just that he doesn't expect that to happen with any sort of regularity.

Then it strikes me as a pointless argument; because the only reason to make the point is to justify the formulation of some kind of large-scale applicability. If it doesn't serve a purpose of separation, then it's a moot point. As I read his work, he's not saying: "Most of you won't make the cut, but we'll take measures to incorporate those who do." He's saying: "Most of you won't make the cut; it doesn't make sense to devote much attention to you." Not to mention that this is really an abhorred model of society to begin with.

History both affects genetic propagation and determines/evidences value.*

Over millions and millions of years, though. The time frame you're speaking of has had, quite literally, no impact on genetic evolution in modern humans.

I look forward to the blog.