lillian on Nostr: ☃️merry chrimist☃️ thank you for this very insightful response! there is ...
☃️merry chrimist☃️ (npub1pt6…6mf6) thank you for this very insightful response! there is certainly no need to apologize
your citation of the ddj is something im very glad to see actually! years ago, the first time i read 0s+1s, i was thinking a lot abt the ddj, particularly Chapters 28 and Chapter 8. in the case of 28, that was both for this concept of cleaving to the feminine, but also for the great tailor who does not cut. sadie plant's model of non-gendered femininity is always much more subtle than cutting would be, virtualizing potentials instead of actualizing them, keeping the store of potentials as an occulted reserve. i think there's a lot of daoist sympathies there
your separation of the numeral realm and mathematics is a fundamental premise of "numogrammatics." trying to, rather than ordering numeracy, use it as a productive schematism which does not need to be ordered, which fosters contact and touch by producing abstract mappings; rather than subordinating numbers to human understanding, drawing out patterns which are capable of having an effect without requiring unity of understanding or intelligibility. there's a sympathy there to an approach to the internet as a text which is utterly impossible to read comprehensively, to genuinely get a grip on, but is constantly touching its users, making things happen through them
you may be right that internet connectivity is less conquerable than numeracy, im not sure. there's definitely attempts at conquering both. for the internet, that's not only search engines for the internet but also contexts where, for instance, facebook has tried to homogenize practically the entire internet use of a particular country, subordinating all connections into its own schema. for numeracy, that's mathematics, but i think it's also a lot of non-mathematical popular numeracy too. numerology, for instance, is usually hinged on a platonic view of numbers as expressing human symbols; it's not math, but it's no less platonic or based on unified human comprehension. but does the prevalence of this platonic view mean the numeral realm is genuinely conquered? it still, clearly, makes things happen, things which are not under anyone's explicit control—and the internet is one of those things
about "accelerationism," this is a historical note which may be of limited interest to you, but the sense of "making things more extreme so they collapse" is not the sense that the lineage g/acc came out of uses. accelerationism is, to speak very generally, a set of theoretical perspectives describing the temporality of runaway processes, specifically runaways which result not in collapse but in the emergence of a new system based on that runaway. it was coined as a pejorative by Benjamin Noys to refer to Nick Land, then reclaimed positively by Mark Fisher, and is associated with the Ccru which preceded its coinage. it has tended to be paired with a letter standing for something which describes some kind of political or ethical approach to runaway systems, particularly capitalism:
- l(eft)/acc for the attempt to transfer capitalist runaway development into a socialist system which would remove inhibitions to that development
- r(ight)/acc for a neoreactionary politics which seeks to unfetter capitalist development from the drag created by dysgenics/wokeness
- u(nconditional)/acc for thinking those are both kinda stupid and eschewing any specific praxis for an anti-praxis of "making oneself worthy of the process" and/or "do what thou wilt"
- g(ender)/acc, which was coined as a sister to u/acc; you've read the Blackpaper so i won't summarize
- e(ffective)/acc, which is completely incoherent in every way yet somehow the one with by far the most uptake
and others besides. but none of these advocates for collapse really, and their praxis-related elements are usually confined to something appended onto accelerationism, not to accelerationism itself. in effect, i think accelerationism is always dealing with a question of survival: how does this process preserve itself by occulted means, how does it hide away in virtuality and then put itself together again, what is the time structure of its development? in that sense i think it borrows an immense amount from Sadie Plant, who was a mentor to the major theorists associated with accelerationism but, i think, outdid them quite a lot. practically all of Plant's topics are basically about the survival and runaway processes: prokaryotes and the great oxygenation, the emergence of the internet, social numericization, etc.
your citation of the ddj is something im very glad to see actually! years ago, the first time i read 0s+1s, i was thinking a lot abt the ddj, particularly Chapters 28 and Chapter 8. in the case of 28, that was both for this concept of cleaving to the feminine, but also for the great tailor who does not cut. sadie plant's model of non-gendered femininity is always much more subtle than cutting would be, virtualizing potentials instead of actualizing them, keeping the store of potentials as an occulted reserve. i think there's a lot of daoist sympathies there
your separation of the numeral realm and mathematics is a fundamental premise of "numogrammatics." trying to, rather than ordering numeracy, use it as a productive schematism which does not need to be ordered, which fosters contact and touch by producing abstract mappings; rather than subordinating numbers to human understanding, drawing out patterns which are capable of having an effect without requiring unity of understanding or intelligibility. there's a sympathy there to an approach to the internet as a text which is utterly impossible to read comprehensively, to genuinely get a grip on, but is constantly touching its users, making things happen through them
you may be right that internet connectivity is less conquerable than numeracy, im not sure. there's definitely attempts at conquering both. for the internet, that's not only search engines for the internet but also contexts where, for instance, facebook has tried to homogenize practically the entire internet use of a particular country, subordinating all connections into its own schema. for numeracy, that's mathematics, but i think it's also a lot of non-mathematical popular numeracy too. numerology, for instance, is usually hinged on a platonic view of numbers as expressing human symbols; it's not math, but it's no less platonic or based on unified human comprehension. but does the prevalence of this platonic view mean the numeral realm is genuinely conquered? it still, clearly, makes things happen, things which are not under anyone's explicit control—and the internet is one of those things
about "accelerationism," this is a historical note which may be of limited interest to you, but the sense of "making things more extreme so they collapse" is not the sense that the lineage g/acc came out of uses. accelerationism is, to speak very generally, a set of theoretical perspectives describing the temporality of runaway processes, specifically runaways which result not in collapse but in the emergence of a new system based on that runaway. it was coined as a pejorative by Benjamin Noys to refer to Nick Land, then reclaimed positively by Mark Fisher, and is associated with the Ccru which preceded its coinage. it has tended to be paired with a letter standing for something which describes some kind of political or ethical approach to runaway systems, particularly capitalism:
- l(eft)/acc for the attempt to transfer capitalist runaway development into a socialist system which would remove inhibitions to that development
- r(ight)/acc for a neoreactionary politics which seeks to unfetter capitalist development from the drag created by dysgenics/wokeness
- u(nconditional)/acc for thinking those are both kinda stupid and eschewing any specific praxis for an anti-praxis of "making oneself worthy of the process" and/or "do what thou wilt"
- g(ender)/acc, which was coined as a sister to u/acc; you've read the Blackpaper so i won't summarize
- e(ffective)/acc, which is completely incoherent in every way yet somehow the one with by far the most uptake
and others besides. but none of these advocates for collapse really, and their praxis-related elements are usually confined to something appended onto accelerationism, not to accelerationism itself. in effect, i think accelerationism is always dealing with a question of survival: how does this process preserve itself by occulted means, how does it hide away in virtuality and then put itself together again, what is the time structure of its development? in that sense i think it borrows an immense amount from Sadie Plant, who was a mentor to the major theorists associated with accelerationism but, i think, outdid them quite a lot. practically all of Plant's topics are basically about the survival and runaway processes: prokaryotes and the great oxygenation, the emergence of the internet, social numericization, etc.