I really really like Nick Land and accelerationism, but neither Land nor many of his commentators and RU-vidrs that cover him are trained educators and know how to pass on information and explainations so that other humans can understand it. You are a rare exception my friend, in not trying to get high on your own farts but to explain stuff so everybody can understand. Be proud, your kind is rare to find. Only critique for you is that the video is disctracting.
Ok, someone explain to my smooth brain why hyperstition isn't just a convoluted way to describe the old idea of a "self fulfilling prophecy." It seems like the philosophical version of Techbros thinking up putting a series of attached cars on a track and trying to justify why it's a disruptive new idea when everyone knows they are just trying to reinvent the train.
Rich kid tech bros with no personality or set of beliefs using a few lines from something a drug addicted murderer wrote decades ago, and using that to create a already known philosophy with an added bit that allows them to manipulate other people for money and so they can not feel inferior due to their lack of personality while having their moral integrity maintained? Well I’ve never!
Hyperstition is a self-fulfilling prophesy on a sociological scale. Got it. I wonder if anyone has analyzed hyperstition in relation to Girard's scapegoat mechanism. Feels like there's a lot of conceptual similarities.
This has became one of my favorite channel on YT, your ability to easily explain these subjects is amazing. Please don't stop making videos! =) PS: I wish I had money to support you on patreon. For the moment, the least I can do is to recommend you.
great video, learned a lot! I feel like making a rundown on cybernetics would help a lot with context/understanding. This vid made a lot more sense after I looked into it.
So the fact that some virtual entities have the power to transport themselves to our reality(materialy), does it mean that some spefic ones, like the space travel thing or the sex dolls, or even AI, are more powerful - that is to say, they are "smarter" entities than the possible rationaly that humans can achive - within the social struture where they were once only virtual? In other words, why some of them become reality when others don't? What is the ontological difference between them? If there is any.
This is a wonderful video. I'm interested in post-Modernism/Structuralism.There is so much intellectual utility that can be gained from this, so much praxis can be done with it.
Gained from this? Are you aware this has no leverage,that once it starts there is no turning back.We are playing with concepts that should be in a Lovecraft story
Lol nah i get it // it just has that same feel to me idk but that doesn't dismiss it or anything if anything it makes it a little more easier to explain, shit i think land was a little inspired by bauillard thru certain examples and terms land uses
@@RVGODZILLA Well, one could say that hyperstition is the inverse of simulacrum, since in the case of hyperstition you must go through simulacrums of the hyperstitious term (instead of "term' you might say "object") to get to the ideal hyperstitious term, while in the case of simulacra you descend from the ideal term down to simulacrums of that ideal term. You can also say that Baudrillard's simulacrum is just a simulacrum of the Platonic simulacrum, since Plato was the first to invent the concept of simulacrum. Deleuze, unlike Baudrillard (and unlike Plato), doesn't see simulacrum as less worthy than the ideal term, he regards it as a copy of the ideal term (or better to say "of the starting term", to avoid idealisation) which contains difference. Consequently, Deleuze (imo) wouldn't idealize the becoming-hyperstitual of the term. For him the hyperstitual would be simply a function of the joint experimental production of linguistic, literal, scientific and philosophical machines... Production of the new?
Hi, I'm a your fan, thanks for the work you do. In the writings of the ccru there is one called "Channel Zero" would you be able to give me some reference on who could have written it or if there is something about it on internet? I don't found so much things.
This is why retroactivity comes into play, I don't think a hyperstiton is a hyperstition before it actualizes itself; before actualization it is just another idea. After actualization however, it is quite literally as if that idea has always been hyperstition, all the way since the beginning.
I can’t tell if this video is pro or anti-hyperstition. Or if it’s just talking about hyperstition. It seems like the entire idea is just manipulation with extra steps so that the person doing the manipulating does it have to accept that they’re doing anything wrong. Edit: Man I forgot how wild 2020 was. I’m at the sex robot part now and I can’t help but think how that whole thing stopped on a dime when some scientists went on record saying how they can produce sperm in a lab no problem. Kind of seems malicious in retrospect. I think it was promoted heavily by Musk which we learned later on has a weird hatred of women to the point he had his whatever they were go though IVF so they he could guarantee he only had boys
