Nick Land
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
Where did he go wrong?
>>7833750
The Dark Enlightenment. NRx advocates monarchism and traditional gender roles, throwing society back into the Middle Ages. You would think that a guy that understand D&G so well, would see the problem with hierarchical power systems. I think Land was just being a deviant reactionary to draw attention to himself. It worked. But no one could possible take his ideas seriously.
>>7833778
That said, Fanged Noumena is still a great read. Lang is/was a great writer. A pleasure to read his work.
this is a good example of a rhizome:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMdPLxbuc8Q
Someone on /lit/ posted "he looks like a Bond villain in a t-shirt" once and now I can't not think of that when I see him posted here to be frank.
>>7833750
I think the problem lies in the fact that Nick confuses American democracy with actual democracy. Anyone in the US knows that we don't have a functioning democracy here. However, being from the UK, maybe Nick can't see this perspective. As such, he condemns democracy in general. Just a thought. What we call democracy is not actual democracy. perhaps, it's all a linguistic problem.
>>7833778
What's wrong with monarchy and traditional gender roles from D&G's perspective? Many serious philosophers from Hobbes to Hegel have similar perspectives.
>>7833890
because d&g destroy dualities on the plane of immanence. the body without organs is no longer a desiring machine once it transcends. like how a caterpillar needs a cocoon to transform into a butterfly. the cocoon is no longer needed once it becomes a butterfly. similarly desires is no longer needed when one becomes a bwo.
similarly, disregarding repressive freudian models, one no longer inflicts masochism upon themselves, and thus has not fascist inclination to become a sadist. in other words, if we don't repress ourselves by ideologies (like those found in freudian complexes), then we have no need to act out against Others.
once ideology is deconstructed, i fail to see how anyone could support power systems of oppression, or, at the very least, hierarchical ones. dualities are deconstructed. only immanent unity remains.
as (>>7833845) noted, Land endorses the idea of the rhizome, not a root-based model. how he could support a root-based model like monarchies, for example, is conflicting with his own ideals, or, at the very least, makes him a hypocrite.
no. i think land used to the dark enlightenment as a NRx service in order to gain notoriety.
>>7833915
What about post-Derrida political theology and radical orthodoxy? Are these similarly absurd or are you just biased against what you see as fascist tendencies? What would be a rhizomatic political structure?
>>7833879
You can't make a distinction between democracy-in-practice and democracy-in-principle. Democracy-in-principle leads to the failings of democracy-in-practice.
>>7833957
a rhizomatic structure is a node-like system, where we traverse like nomads from point to point. the rhizome, however, unlike the root-model, is horizontal. everything rests along the same equal base.
root models are hierarchical and vertically established (a top down approach). these are the current oppressive power institutes we currently have in society.
in short, the rhizome sees beyond differences and has no need to structure an identity.
believe in god if you want. i'm not going to stop you. after all, what right do i have to infringe upon your personal freedoms? however, the minute you try to establish a system of order from this orthodoxy, you create a vertical system of oppression, where people must conform and assimilate to you ideal in order to find a sense of acceptance (lest they deviate from it and be outcast).
as far as derrida goes, all derrida says is that word are ambivalent (like yin-yang symbols). anytime we make an interpretation we are seeing either yin or yang but never both at once. the minute we see these both yin and yang, they clash, destroying any one-sided interpretation. the ambivalence of a word nullifies our ability to actually interpret anything from a cultural perspective. it destroys ideology.
>>7833965
but the democracy we have in practice does not adhere to the democracy in principle.
the same goes for socialism or communism. communism in principle has never been implemented in practice.
lenin was a right-wing deviant of the traditional marxists. the actual marxists never got into power. it was called communism, though, so that the people would support it.
similarly, the USA called it communism during the cold war because it was a helpful way to deter people from actual communism itself.
the same goes for capitalism. the USA is not a free market capitalistic system. look at the big business bailouts. if this were a free market capitalistic system, those corporations would have gone bankrupt. bailouts don't exist in free market systems. we are a long way from the teachings of adam smith.
>>7833750
Didn't name the jew
Too obsessed with post-human ideology, didn't internalize the aristocratic mindset
>>7833988
So rhizomatic politics is anarchy? That sounds unrealistic.
>>7834011
But it's the nature of those principles that make the system purporting to represent them what it is. I would say the same for communism (even as a communist) too - all systems live up to their ideals even in their failure. America is capitalism just as the USSR was communism. That doesn't mean neither has any good points, but it does mean that we shouldn't disavow their bad points as not "actually existing".
Also I would dispute your reading of Lenin as non-Marxist. Stalin, sure. But Lenin was Marxist.I am biased, though, because I believe the only plausible attempt to realise communism is modern China.
>>7833750
That quote goes back to the New Testament.
>>7834023
it depends on what you mean by anarchy. are you referring to socialism or are you referring to chaos? rhizomes are schizophrenic. as i said, the body without organs is disORGANized. they are to be seen in contrast with the desiring-machine which is ORGANized enough to follow through with its desires.
for example, one needs the desire to motivate themselves to learn. but once one learns to see beyond ideology, they dismiss desire. thus, their organized self (desiring-machine) dissolves away into a state of disorganization (the body without organs).
>>7834062
(let's assume i am a bwo) what do i do? i don't desire? do i still eat? should
i try helping others achieve the bwo so we can live in socialist utopia together? do i run away and join a taz or commune with other bwos? can i not assume power? would a bwo in politics be a deleuzean version of a philosopher king?
>>7833778
Nick Land has never advocated for monarchy or traditional gender roles
>>7834085
>do i still eat?
you're confusing desire (want) with basic needs and necessities.
>should
i try helping others achieve the bwo so we can live in socialist utopia together?
if you are a full body without organs, yes. if you are an empty body or cancerous without organs, no. there are 3 types of bodies without organs.
>can i not assume power?
not if your a bwo. bodies without organs rest on the immanent plane where all is one. power rests in state-like structures where we see differences and generate identities, creating the idea of the Other. the body without organs sees that there are no Others. only Us.
>a deleuzean version of a philosopher king?
only when we repress ourselves do we act out as fascists in power systems of control (masochists tend to sadistically act out at Others that are not like Them). kings and queens are hierarchical and root-based systems of power. they are the opposite or rhizomatic systems.
>>7834107
http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/
>>7834130
where does he advocate for monarchy or traditional gender roles in that?
>>7834124
>if you are a full body without organs, yes. if you are an empty body or cancerous without organs, no. there are 3 types of bodies without organ
what are these three different types?
>power rests in state-like structures where we see differences and generate identities, creating the idea of the Other. the body without organs sees that there are no Others. only Us.
wasn't deleuze employed by a university and guatarri as a psychiatrist? how are these not state-like structures where we see difference?
>>7834146
>what are these three different types?
empty body without organs-->think of this guy like a zen buddhist monk: completely indifferent and desireless; unable to take action.
full body without organs -->this is what d&g advocate for in their works. this is the body that is constantly creating concepts that can aid in transforming people and social structures. as they state in their book what is philosophy, a philosopher is one who creates concepts.
cancerous body without organs-->the cancerous body is constantly caught in recursion. he goes over the same things day after day, unable to escape his looping cycle. he is like quining source-code.
>wasn't deleuze employed by a university and guatarri as a psychiatrist? how are these not state-like structures where we see difference?
universities are power institutes. it's a part of the State apparatus. to d&g, one must create war-machines to combat these systems of control, heading toward free-spaces as opposed to ones of control.
p.s. just because someone works for a power system doesn't mean they embrace the power structure. Chomsky works at MIT but is completely against power structures.
>>7834162
thank you for your explanations. this has been a pleasant dialogue. i was being a bit purposefully obtuse but i identify quite a bit with d&g. i am actually diagnosed schizo and read logic of sense and anti-oedipus in the past. i'm not sure whether i'm closer to a full or cancerous bwo tho. probably cancerous :(
can you elaborate on warmachines?
also does your ps contradict what you said earlier about bwo's being unable to assume political power?
>>7834189
>can you elaborate on warmachines?
war-machines are simply objects that are constructed to overcome oppressive power institutes. think of them like grass-roots movements, which defends and allows humans the freedom to move across spaces that are not bound to the state.
>bwo's being unable to assume political power?
a body without organs sees beyond Others. All is One to the body without organs. therefore, who is there left to oppress? if i choose to oppress anyone, then i would only be oppressing myself. the body without organs has no fascist-like inclinations. he does not repress himself, and, therefore, has no need to repress or oppress others around him.
>>7834261
so is all power inherently oppression? how do you govern children? and protect yourself from others?
>>7834338
>so is all power inherently oppression?
power could be used for positive purposes. but what is positive and what is negative varies from person to person and from place to place. "one man's heaven is another man's hell" as the saying goes. power usually tends to be oppressive because of this. i would say that if you really want to help people, simply give them the basic essentials for their survival. outside of that, everything else is relative.
>how do you govern children?
acceptance in society is based on how well we conform and assimilate to the dominant ideals of the social system. most people (since they don't want their children to be outcast) make them conform and assimilate to society through positive and negative forms of reinforcement.
when it comes to raising children, i would say that we need to teach them about social norms (simply so they are not outcast) but, at the same time, teach them that these norms are socially constructed, and that they are not reflective of actual reality. in other words, teach children how to play the game, but, simultaneously, make sure they understand that it is just a game. make sure they understand how superficial and spectacle-like society actually is.
>and protect yourself from others?
there are no others. the others we see are simply symbolic distinctions. to the earth, we are dirt. to the universe, we are but energy undergoing a state of transition. any meaning we find through symbolic and cultural differences (which we use to construct identities) is illusory, linked to the chains of language.
>>7834107
indeed. nick land labeled the dark enlightenment. but, if you read his articles pertaining to it, he's ambivalent about the whole issue (intentionally ambivalent, of course, via derrida).
i think land is dissuaded by democracy since it isn't currently comparable with the concept of freedom. like a previous poster stated, even though we call the usa democratic, it's not democracy. i think that's what land is addressing.
Deleuze = Dew (Mountain Dew)
Derrida = Doritos
Somehow, somebody needs to find a way to make this into a meme.
>>7834474
Land = X-Box
>>7834460
Land wants fragmentation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJMlaupGHTM
