Grey Hat Accelerationism – An emergent hyperstition? Part 1.

Bleeding into reality

794px-shoggoth_by_nottsuo Shoggoth – Wikimedia Commons

Accelerationism – An Introduction

“‘accelerationism’ is the idea that the only way out is through.” – Steven Shaviro

There have been myriad musings on Accelerationism spreading like a virus across the press, blogosphere and message boards as of late and this post is yet another manifestation of said virus. As topics such as ‘the Singularity’, Automation, Blockchains and AI grow ever more prominent in the press, the yearning for a philosophical explanation or religious understanding to this technomic explosion grow louder.

The Guardian’s journalist Andy Beckett has penned a comprehensive introduction to Accelerationism including background on some of the progenitors of the movement, such as Warwick University’s Cultural Cybernetic Research Unit (Ccru). Beckett’s expansive text also covers perhaps its most important and controversial figure – Nick Land. It’s certainly a worthy starting point for the uninitiated. It’s the entrance to the rabbit hole if you will.

View original post 9,089 more words

Advertisements

About dmf

alienist @ large, mostly on foot
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Grey Hat Accelerationism – An emergent hyperstition? Part 1.

  1. landzek says:

    A new catholic religion is quite exciting.

    Until we figure out what religion is. Then it will be merely another philosophical label. Maybe we’ll have a show called. “Project Accelerate”. Or like “top accelerator”. Very entertaining. For sure. Thanks.

  2. landzek says:

    Wow. A 10,000 Word blog post. That is a mountain of post. Kinda makes me not want to read it, unfortunately. That person could have had 20 readable posts in that.

    I think Acc. Is pertinent, but really only interesting in its religious aspects. It reminds me a medieval Europe and Christianity. The ‘saviour’ like Delueze; The ontological ideas that have been developed into theological dogma by the ‘saints’: Land and the others; Many congregants don’t even understand what their discussion are based upon but continue to speak about it as actual truth; the idea that there is an actual culminating motion and the ability of those who ‘commune’ with the Ideas which are to be known and acted upon by the faithful; Little concern for those who don’t ‘see it’ as well as a discounting of any opposing view, but even as it incorporates such difference into the truth. The umbrella dogmatic justification of ‘fiction’, which further justifies the faith as true.

    It’s like Scientology, but a sort of ‘next stage’ cultivated religion that has learned from the mistakes of L Ron.

    It will be interesting to see if it evolves into a Planet of the Apes missile worshipping deformed mutant human congregation.

    One can usually tell when a religions has reached a kind of ‘pubescent’ stage when it speaks so seriously and meticulously about the profound ‘truths’ is has discovered.

    I do like the ‘fictions’ thing. It’s totally redundant and self-arguing: like the One God who is three but one, and the Big Story that explains everything all the while allowing for a sensible progressive future. And the the various derivatives: it’s like Protestant shedding into the multiplicity of various Christianities. The left the right, the polemical and the unitive.

    This could be the great Modern Religion that we’ve been waiting for to be able to view ourselves without any further recourse to religious hype. Truly the modern-post-Modern manifestation.

    anyways. I always appreciate the updates here and there about the Acc.

    So thanks again.

    • dmf says:

      anything that strays beyond giving accounts of happenings on the ground (so to speak) should be considered speculation/fiction.

    • dmf says:

      well it’s running on my machine, not sure why you have these issues on yer end.
      google Russia a postmodern dictatorship? on youtube

      • landzek says:

        I am on my phone. Maybe that’s why. I’ve wondered why when you’ve gave me links They come up as the HTML. But then. Even if I copy paste various sizing s it stil doesn’t work. Idk.

      • landzek says:

        Cool.

        “Fiction” is one way. Is “religion’ in another. Zizek talks about engaging with ones subjectivity through the (media) screen. Kind of similar to fiction. Identification with the image.

      • dmf says:

        I guess it matters if one is talking about more than spinning theories of, often people seem to confuse all faith/beliefs as varieties of Religion instead of properly understanding religions as kinds of faiths/beliefs. Seems to me that people are just doing what they can to cope with what’s happening and to entertain themselves if they can. The nice part of the video is that the suggestion of the guy in the middle that the way to respond to pomo tactics is not to engage them in kind (echoes to some degree of Kierkegaard recognizing the trap of debating with Hegelians) and so feed the trolls, but to offer actual political/social/economic programs that change the conditions, but given the many (and intensifying) limits on human powers to assemble such programs/institutions most of us just fall into doing things like these sorts of e-exchanges, not so much engaging with subjectivity as expressing our overflows/excesses. Alphonso Lingis (pace Lacan and all) was right that we suffer from excesses not from ‘lacks’.

      • landzek says:

        yeah. Similarly. Badiou has suggested that withdrawing from party politics is the best way to engage with politics radically.

        I mean myself even come to the same conclusion, as you point out there, ( K and H thing) that there’s almost no point in engaging with, what I do derogatorily call the “riffraff“. If people honestly want to learn and honestly want to engage then that is a noble effort and a worthy undertaking . because I feel that’s why I’m here is to learn from others. So many people just want to submerge their selves in theoretical nonsense the source of which they really have no clue except that they’re attempting to position themselves on the screen, so to speak. 😛. Just because people ccan form coherent sentences with complex terms does not mean they’re intelligent in my book.

        As much I think as I always give you shit 👨🏽‍🚀. I mean that my comments tend to be strange, maybe a little obtuse, I have been following your blog for now four years or something like that so that says something more than I just want to be an asshole. Lol.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s