I agree that Land is the most influential British philosopher of the 21st century so far, so it's great to see such a thorough consideration of his thought. I never got round to specifically writing about Land on my series on drugs and philosophy, but my hunch is they played a part in the shaping of the philosophy and in the cult-like tendencies that have coagulated around the philosophy. I also note that it has become customary to present Fisher as the accelerationism-with-a-human-face alternative, but he seems to have contributed to the prevailing sense that there really is no alternative: either withdraw from the system altogether or be ready to dance with the Devil.
This is one of those humbling times where I am reminded my modest efforts towards engaging with philosophy and theology and essay and thought are entirely subpar. Questioning everything. The near total absence of complexity of thought and serious engagement with theory in my field (psych) has never been more evident. The background knowledge I'm missing in order to effectively compute what I'm reading is insane. (It could just be that I'm incredibly stupid and blaming my discipline is sheer cope.)
I'm going to our myself as an idiot, but what I really liked about this piece is the reading of people against or through each other, bringing in others who do the same to support or contrast your arguments. This is a skill I value, but it's really strange because I'm trying to learn it in my 30s and I'm left wondering when we were supposed to learn how to do this sort of thing. It's one thing if I'm an idiot who just wasn't paying attention when we were starting to read and think this way, but it's another if it's a skill that's being neglected. And another again if it's only really neglected outside elite institutions (I am stopping myself from ranting about tertiary education as an employability pathway as one of the primary mechanisms for devaluing that same education, which I think is likely more prevalent at non-elite institutions). In summary, it was really interesting to read/see how you were doing that. I really admire that capacity to think and hold complexity!
would be more interested in reading the actual applications to theology after such an extensive set-up… piece comes across rather gestural
erudite, certainly
but disappointingly curatorial
•
I would be particularly curious to see your intentions behind the inclusion of the thirst-trap made more explicit
potentially very interesting element, on certain potentially transgressive levels — though, as-is, it leaves a bit too much to be inferred I think, producing the backlash you're receiving
…though, perhaps to mitigate the backlash would work against the potential true intention of memetic advantage
it was written as a lit review for my supervisors… later chapters would develop the theological applications but I’m not sure whether to return to the project
The "energy as solar, entropic" + thanatos-as-giving-rise-to-and-organizing-the-repetitions-of-eros combo gave me a vivid image of the ancient Aztecs and their ritual practice of human sacrifice to ensure the sun rose every day. It really was a death impulse and of such impetus!! Talk about schizo-politics amirite. Sun as capital, human blood as its renewal and undoing.
Based on this, I’m not sure that I understand why Land and his followers aren’t advocating for open borders and, ultimately, the dissolution of the nation state like other deterritorialisation-loving libertarians…?
Great grasp of both the primary and secondary literature relevant to Land, Fisher, etc. Also some gorgeous stuff on Bataille, with tons of food for thought. I get a bit lost by the end, though. I’m not sure Land’s criticism of deconstruction as depriving the negative of its power holds water, or that Land’s account of “outsideness” could a basis for a metaphysics sans ontotheology, at least insofar as it doesn’t seem clear that a metaphysics sans ontotheology could “be” anything other than just another metaphysics (and thus still ontotheological.) This persists into the first area of inquiry you outline, giving Deleuze’s metaphysics as “post-Heideggerian.” In what way is this so? It seems as though the Heideggerian objection that any metaphysics “after” Heidegger, in still being metaphysics, would remain pre-Heideggerian, either on the basis of the destruktion that begins in Being and Time OR on the basis of the middle-period concern with “another beginning” OR the late concern with the end of philosophy (as) metaphysics and the task of thinking. All that being said, it’s sick that you’re looking at Scotus, and I look forward to reading more!
I agree that Land is the most influential British philosopher of the 21st century so far, so it's great to see such a thorough consideration of his thought. I never got round to specifically writing about Land on my series on drugs and philosophy, but my hunch is they played a part in the shaping of the philosophy and in the cult-like tendencies that have coagulated around the philosophy. I also note that it has become customary to present Fisher as the accelerationism-with-a-human-face alternative, but he seems to have contributed to the prevailing sense that there really is no alternative: either withdraw from the system altogether or be ready to dance with the Devil.
I will be reading this over and over.
great work; appreciate this
Amazing writing.
Will require a couple more reads but breathtaking.
Phenomenal
loved it
This is one of those humbling times where I am reminded my modest efforts towards engaging with philosophy and theology and essay and thought are entirely subpar. Questioning everything. The near total absence of complexity of thought and serious engagement with theory in my field (psych) has never been more evident. The background knowledge I'm missing in order to effectively compute what I'm reading is insane. (It could just be that I'm incredibly stupid and blaming my discipline is sheer cope.)
this is just a difference of disciplinary training! I’ve felt the same when trying to do philosophy as someone with a history background
I'm going to our myself as an idiot, but what I really liked about this piece is the reading of people against or through each other, bringing in others who do the same to support or contrast your arguments. This is a skill I value, but it's really strange because I'm trying to learn it in my 30s and I'm left wondering when we were supposed to learn how to do this sort of thing. It's one thing if I'm an idiot who just wasn't paying attention when we were starting to read and think this way, but it's another if it's a skill that's being neglected. And another again if it's only really neglected outside elite institutions (I am stopping myself from ranting about tertiary education as an employability pathway as one of the primary mechanisms for devaluing that same education, which I think is likely more prevalent at non-elite institutions). In summary, it was really interesting to read/see how you were doing that. I really admire that capacity to think and hold complexity!
would be more interested in reading the actual applications to theology after such an extensive set-up… piece comes across rather gestural
erudite, certainly
but disappointingly curatorial
•
I would be particularly curious to see your intentions behind the inclusion of the thirst-trap made more explicit
potentially very interesting element, on certain potentially transgressive levels — though, as-is, it leaves a bit too much to be inferred I think, producing the backlash you're receiving
…though, perhaps to mitigate the backlash would work against the potential true intention of memetic advantage
it was written as a lit review for my supervisors… later chapters would develop the theological applications but I’m not sure whether to return to the project
Ahhh you may consider clarifying that a bit more in similar, future instances lol, may avoid some of the harshness I see now is undeserved :P
lol but also hmm
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Lol.
Thank you for this light read. Refreshing ;)
The "energy as solar, entropic" + thanatos-as-giving-rise-to-and-organizing-the-repetitions-of-eros combo gave me a vivid image of the ancient Aztecs and their ritual practice of human sacrifice to ensure the sun rose every day. It really was a death impulse and of such impetus!! Talk about schizo-politics amirite. Sun as capital, human blood as its renewal and undoing.
Well that was an interesting essay and has definitely added more to my 'to read before I snuff it' pile, subbed!
Based on this, I’m not sure that I understand why Land and his followers aren’t advocating for open borders and, ultimately, the dissolution of the nation state like other deterritorialisation-loving libertarians…?
Great grasp of both the primary and secondary literature relevant to Land, Fisher, etc. Also some gorgeous stuff on Bataille, with tons of food for thought. I get a bit lost by the end, though. I’m not sure Land’s criticism of deconstruction as depriving the negative of its power holds water, or that Land’s account of “outsideness” could a basis for a metaphysics sans ontotheology, at least insofar as it doesn’t seem clear that a metaphysics sans ontotheology could “be” anything other than just another metaphysics (and thus still ontotheological.) This persists into the first area of inquiry you outline, giving Deleuze’s metaphysics as “post-Heideggerian.” In what way is this so? It seems as though the Heideggerian objection that any metaphysics “after” Heidegger, in still being metaphysics, would remain pre-Heideggerian, either on the basis of the destruktion that begins in Being and Time OR on the basis of the middle-period concern with “another beginning” OR the late concern with the end of philosophy (as) metaphysics and the task of thinking. All that being said, it’s sick that you’re looking at Scotus, and I look forward to reading more!