Libidinal Accelerationism
-
Nah.
-
@LD330 said
"Okay so the first thing to keep in mind is that according to psychologist Lacan, as long as doing good is a superego injunction, the most revolutionary thing one can do is to be evil.
Accelerate Left: Here we are Stalin. We are egalitarian and all-encompassing. The sickle is sweeping over entire countries. We are equalizing. Everyone is our comrade. The Great Leap Forward is happening. Stalin is the Great-Father instituting equality for all.
Accelerate Right: Here we are Hitler. We are part of a massive institution holding jurisdiction over all. The swastika stands on a massive banner. We are superior. We are discriminatory, or not even. We are part of an in-group. Hitler the Father will lead us to victory.
Either way millions of people will die.
Strap on your war boots, best foot forward..."
To get back on topic....
I think it's possible to make more moderate adjustments.
-
-
What is appropriate depends on the context: the time, the place, the individual.
-
An individual's job isn't to be a balanced average of everything. Just a balanced average of one's own impulses. One gets control of the vacillations of one's being, not to become a neutral, but so as to be in harmony with one's essential direction.
-
Work your way from superficial to deeper. Ergo if you have too much superego going on, some id might help.
-
-
So weird to come back here and see other people on the same page.
ACCELERATE THE PROCESS.
@LD330 said
"Okay so the first thing to keep in mind is that according to psychologist Lacan, as long as doing good is a superego injunction, the most revolutionary thing one can do is to be evil.
Accelerate Left: Here we are Stalin. We are egalitarian and all-encompassing. The sickle is sweeping over entire countries. We are equalizing. Everyone is our comrade. The Great Leap Forward is happening. Stalin is the Great-Father instituting equality for all.
Accelerate Right: Here we are Hitler. We are part of a massive institution holding jurisdiction over all. The swastika stands on a massive banner. We are superior. We are discriminatory, or not even. We are part of an in-group. Hitler the Father will lead us to victory.
Either way millions of people will die.
Strap on your war boots, best foot forward..."
-
Do we at least get to watch our two resident nazis suck each other's d*cks? That would be slightly kinky.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Do we at least get to watch our two resident nazis suck each other's d*cks? That would be slightly kinky."
It's funny how scared you are. You ever wonder if the small minded are sequestered in lower grades because the implosion and explosion of contradictory extremes to induce higher equilibriums would just be too much. You wouldn't be able to get a grip. Sucking dick is part of the initiation.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhF4V9Gfve0For silent bystanders, here's an intro to accelerationism which is like a gnostic marxism that presupposes capitalism is in the process of destroying itself and we should accelerate the process, among other things.
-
@Mercurius said
"It's funny how scared you are. "
It's funny how bad you stupid nazis are at reading people's emotions.
But then again, Nazis aren't renowned for their social skills.
(By the way, I was mocking the nazism, not the dick-sucking. Why don't nazis ever understand a joke?)
-
There are a couple of things about right and left acceleration that can be clarified with Lacanian psychology.
It will require a bit of thinking.
In this picture we have Lacan's four discourses: www.scielo.br/img/revistas/interc/v39n2//1809-5844-interc-39-02-0099-gf02-en.jpg
In all discourses here the top left is Agent, bottom left is Truth, top right is the Other, bottom right is the Product.
S1 is the Master Signifier (Phallus), $ is the Barred Subject, S2 is Knowledge, and a is the Little Other.
For right acceleration we have the Master's Discourse. The agent here is the master signifier, the phallus. The reference is to the Hegelian Master (Phenomenology of Spirit), who is in a "fight to the death" with the other for recognition. The result of the fight for recognition is the truth, the barred subject.
The issue with this discourse is that the Master cannot comprehend his own discourse. He can say what his discourse is, but he cannot say what it is with any understanding. Before he would have understanding he is in the fight to the death with the other.
The contrast to the master, in Hegel, is the slave. The master fights for recognition among men, but the slave works for mastery of nature (bodhisattva-like).
With some right accelerationists I have seen, they are perverts. They take the right-wing jouissance and pervert it. That's why it's so much fun.
We want jouissance and adventure. The only place there's really desire is in the prisons and in the brothels.
For left acceleration we have the University Discourse. The agent is knowledge and the truth is the phallus/master signifier. The other is treated as the other and the product is the barred subject.
So this is like communism. We can overcode the society, but as long as we are doing it with the phallus, it is still worthless. We don't want phallic jouissance. We want creativity and viruality. We want new ways of interacting with each other. The University Discourse imposes a new form of knowledge whose product would still be the barred subject, who has to deal with the same worthless phallic jouissance. It would not give us a utopia or a paradise, and it would not relieve us from demand.
This is why this discourse makes people mad. They are telling them how things should be, and as such the truth of their discourse is still the phallus. Why "should" it be that way? The immediate answer is because of the phallus, because I said so. This is not desire.
The objection the left may give is "But that's what the right does." But the answer to that is "So you have ressentiment." And therefore the sublation is to accelerate. We move into the phallic discourse, we appropriate it for our desire.
My view of the left-wing politics is that we want it so that people are treated at their subject point and allowed in the society's signifying chains. That is to say, so they can act naturally, love is the law, regardless of how they are as a barred subject. For example, handicapped people are often not treated as subjects like capable people. We wince when we see someone like that because how can they be okay with that? It doesn't look healthy. But stuff like that, handicaps, trans people-- the barred subject is where people can't help being how they are. And they already exist as castrated. The need is not to overcode society with a different phallic discourse, those people will still be castrated. The need is to move into and through phallic jouissance to where people can feel safe and okay in their lives. We need to be evil enough, or not even, to interpellate these people at their subject points.
And this can't be a "should," because that's phallic and that's the University Discourse. This is where right acceleration comes in, as in perversion they move past phallic discourse into absence and desire.
The idea is to accept every evil and pervert it. The right can be evil, because I already don't understand it: I adore it.
Deleuze was far-left, and his philosophy is based more on Nietzsche than Marx. We want to create new affects, new ways of treating each other and playing with each other. I think left-wingers should come up with a higher ideal. There are so many good ideas out there. Why aren't they advocating paradise on earth? We could bring down the kingdom of heaven.
"Because of the phallic discourse." Right.
Hence, even if the left is ressentiment, we must move into it, leveling everything in our path. Perhaps we will find something of value.
Nietzsche Quote"Briefly and regrettably, they belong to the LEVELLERS, these wrongly named "free spirits"—as glib-tongued and scribe-fingered slaves of the democratic taste and its "modern ideas" all of them men without solitude, without personal solitude, blunt honest fellows to whom neither courage nor honourable conduct ought to be denied, only, they are not free, and are ludicrously superficial, especially in their innate partiality for seeing the cause of almost ALL human misery and failure in the old forms in which society has hitherto existed—a notion which happily inverts the truth entirely!
What they would fain attain with all their strength, is the universal, green-meadow happiness of the herd, together with security, safety, comfort, and alleviation of life for every one, their two most frequently chanted songs and doctrines are called "Equality of Rights" and "Sympathy with All Sufferers"—and suffering itself is looked upon by them as something which must be DONE AWAY WITH.
"We opposite ones, however, who have opened our eye and conscience to the question how and where the plant "man" has hitherto grown most vigorously, believe that this has always taken place under the opposite conditions, that (and here's the badass part)for this end the dangerousness of his situation had to be increased enormously, his inventive faculty and dissembling power (his "spirit") had to develop into subtlety and daring under long oppression and compulsion, and his Will to Life had to be increased to the unconditioned Will to Power—we believe that severity, violence, slavery, danger in the street and in the heart, secrecy, stoicism, tempter's art and devilry of every kind,—that everything wicked, terrible, tyrannical, predatory, and serpentine in man, serves as well for the elevation of the human species as its opposite—we do not even say enough when we only say THIS MUCH, and in any case we find ourselves here, both with our speech and our silence, at the OTHER extreme of all modern ideology and gregarious desirability, as their antipodes perhaps? What wonder that we "free spirits" are not exactly the most communicative spirits? that we do not wish to betray in every respect WHAT a spirit can free itself from, and WHERE perhaps it will then be driven?"
--Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
I hope people will understand this, I know it's difficult.
"Let thy pity be a divining: to know first if thy friend wanteth pity. Perhaps he loveth in thee the unmoved eye, and the look of eternity." --Thus Spoke Zarathustra
