Pls no John Green.
u trollin' or what? this is just a list of the different definitions of "culture":
- An ideal state, such as "he is very cultured"
- A process by which meaning is created
- A vague way of describing all of the ways that social practices tie a group of people together and define them.
>>8118424
You dirt pleb, what don't you get?
The author is saying culture as represented by Long Revolution is not entirely correct. Not only is culture evocative in our everyday routines, but it permeates every thread of society and can even be seen influencing events that would have been thought to be exclusive.
if we're talking about text, not prose, then it's some shitty legal shit that employs extremely dense language that's 25% legal definitions and 25% references to existing or proposed laws
or some coding guides since I don't know anything about coding
basically anything that's written about a narrow subject matter by experts for experts, if you're not an expert it's like staring at a brick wall
I do enjoy reading stuff like that for that specific experience
I mean, it makes sense if you have a grasp of the concepts/words he's using and it's fun to read but shit, this guy is dense. This is one of the more straightforward theoretical bits of the book.
>>8118699
>petropolitical undercurrents function as narrative lubes
also the entire text is utter bullshit
>>8118716
I can understand why you'd say that, but it's not really true. Pic related, for example, is an interesting retelling of cosmology and an object's ability to live in a non biological sense - using the Objects par excellence, the Earth and the Sun.
>>8118828
reads like TES lore
>>8118841
And Anselm's Proslogion reads like some lousy generic prayer while being one of the salient point of Western ontological thought. Your point?
>>8118866
>Your point?
an observation
http://orgyofthewill.net/
The guy is either dead or in jail at this point.
this shit
>>8118699
That's not complex, its just recondite stupidity
>>8118909
>this is what analytic philosophers masturbate to
>>8118901
Why? Makes for great reading and usually engages with our world and culture in ways that let us perceive (and then relate to) it differently, maybe more effectively. I'll give you that it's more akin to philosophical fiction most of the time, but that doesn't make it less worthwhile.
>>8118917
im not rotating because your supposed to read it horizontally. that way the symbols make sense.
>>8118699
Please tell me this is just some form of overly complex satire
>>8119059
The fact this is what you managed to take away from those pages (especially the second one) leaves me baffled - and speaks more about yourself than it does about the text.
>Liberal
Saying that about a book praised by Nick Land is amusing.
>>8119105
Not him but the only thing of value I got out of that mess was that visual comparison between oil and Satan, that was pretty neat. Everything else is just next level bullshit. I'm honestly impressed, I'd never seen such an amazing amount of lunacy in text in such a condensed manner before.
>Nick Land
Why would I care about anything some crackpot says?
>>8118699
>petroleum was formed as a Tellurian entity under unimaginable pressure and heat
>entity
this is silly and reeks of the need to prove himself
>>8119105
This is built on the CCRU writings which use hyperstition, or the generative power of myth, to criticize white/cis/hetero "patriarchy" which the hypersitional tradition calls the "oecumenon". It's a way of being an SJW without deconstructive "critiques" and other faggotry. Deleuzian concept-engineering.
In the end, it all boils down to yet another attempt by revolutionary Marxists to libidinize philosophy to better understand, and subvert capital.
Read the CCRU corpus (available as ebook), then Cyclonopedia, then go back and read D&G and then Lyotard's "Libidinal Economy"
>>8119130
He's a moderate muslim apologist:
https://ciudadtecnicolor.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/the-militarization-of-peace.pdf
>>8119097
Kind of. I think it follows Deleuze and Guattari's idea of making a narrative obscure and convoluted in order to generate as many different interpretations as possible and avoid dogmatization. Pic related.
>>8119123
I often treat it as some kind of theology textbook written by a professor under psychoactive drugs. It's fun, you may gain some neat insights/ideas, maybe it makes more sense if your pregress knowledge matches the author's.
The Nick Land thing was more to say that slamming a book he praised as liberal isn't probably correct, considering his political stance.
>>8119130
How do you mean?
>>8118699
what the fuck are you reading?
>>8119160
Cyclonopedia. Pretty cool.
Finnegan's Wake
>>8119446
A guy I know posited the theory that the reason people have trouble with Finnegans Wake is because literature and movies have taught us to think visually. Most narrative is visual descriptions of things or events for you to imagine like you're watching a play or movie. So for most people anything that diverges from "I'm telling you a story you can picture in your head" becomes challenging.
>Ah now, it was tootwoly torrific, the mummurrlubejubes! And then after that they used to be so forgetful, counting motherpeributts (up one up four) to membore her beaufu mouldern maiden name, for overflauwing, by the dream of woman the owneirist, in forty lands. From Greg and Doug on poor Greg and Mat and Mar and Lu and Jo, now happily buried, our four! And there she was right enough, that lovely sight enough, the girleen bawn asthore, as for days galore, of planxty Gregory. Egory. O bunket not Orwin!
Joyce was going blind, so it makes sense to me that he'd basically say fuck conventional narrative and focused more on puns, portmanteus, onomatopeias and the like.
>>8118424
The Cantos by far.
>>8120967
I've only read bits and pieces of Finnegans Wake, but I found that if I read it aloud without trying to "think" about what it's saying, without trying to visualize it, and let the language "wash over" me instead, I would start laughing uncontrollably for what seemed like no reason, sort of like being on a psychedelic.
>>8118699
>(1) the leveling of all planetary erections
I actually love this, thanks dude. Ecofeminism is wild.
>>8118424
How is this difficult to understand?
This is essentially an opinion about culture. There's no special barrier, besides reading comprehension, to properly understand this article.
If you want complex material, then get into really high level theoretical physics.
>>8118424
Kafka's "The burrow" was rough going. If memory serves, there's one sentence that spans five pages.
John Galt's endless speech in "Atlas shrugged" is best skipped.
>>8118699
This is Cyclonopedia by Reza Negarestani, which is a horror text as well as philosophical text. Worth the read just for the idea of combining Lovecraftian beings with the oil underneath the middle east.
>>8118424
names
The Fourth Century - Edouard Glissant
>>8119139
>Read the CCRU corpus (available as ebook), then Cyclonopedia, then go back and read D&G and then Lyotard's "Libidinal Economy"
Senpai I would honestly rather read my own autopsy report
>>8121087
it's a little bit scary to think that it got published
>>8118424
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
>supertautological
Past a certain point, how "difficult" a book is depends on how actively you want to read it. I read Heidegger's Being and Time when I was 17, and that was manifestly difficult. Now (many years later) I can breeze through Deleuze & Guattari.
People whining about Continental philosophy being (essentially) crap are just immature.
It's totally worth it to plow headlong through this stuff, because once it clicks, it can be enjoyable to read.
>>8118699
Fuck this is focaults pendulum on arabian steroids
>>8119059
Go back to /pol/
Or at the very least try to read things before getting triggered by what you guess they might've said and complain about Muslims
>>8124549
Pic got me in a inexpected way
>>8118424
I tried reading Kant's Critique of Reason and got through 1 page before having to give up.
Am I retarded?
>>8124572
No; Kant is pretty dense, and there are only a few real gold nuggets in there. If you're not insanely bent on reading the original text, you're better off just finding an external breakdown.
>>8124572
>Am I retarded?
Yes, absolutely.
>>8118424
French 'philosophy', especially semiotics, until I realized they make up contradictory definitions on the spot.
There is a passage in In Search of Lost Time where the Narrator describe the jews and their habits for 2 fucking pages (big pages). And it's a single sentence. It was like a pasta to read.
>>8124644
I read a quotation recently that summarized French philosophy as an attempt to get away with philosophy whilst utilizing as little logic as possible; none, even.
It was accurate.
>>8124651
Well, I think Sokal already killed them and they're just zombies at this point. Based Searle refused to acknowledge Derrida at all. They mostly live through clickbait media today.
>>8124660
>Searle was particularly hostile to Derrida's deconstructionist framework and much later refused to let his response to Derrida be printed along with Derrida's papers in the 1988 collection Limited Inc. Searle did not consider Derrida's approach to be legitimate philosophy or even intelligible writing and argued that he did not want to legitimize the deconstructionist point of view by dedicating any attention to it.
Based.
>>8124677
>Searle basically refused to directly link to Derrida
>>8118424
http://archiveofourown.org/works/6835171/chapters/15601768
>>8125240
>504439 words.
>longer than Ulysses
and I can't even write two pages without feeling like shit
>>8120967
no the real issue is that I can read it twenty times and still have no idea what the fuck is going on
if i can't follow the story or discern any rational thought or plot or semblance of a motif or anything, am I a pleb?
