>>51 Sigh... so first there is no colonizer mindset and now your telling me that there is one but its not Western.
"bantu expansion". Chinese were doing Han supremacy while westoids were living in mud huts. Nothing about this mindset is western, and more importantly, it has nothing to do with Nick Land
False equivalence. Its curious that Westerners narrate history in terms of rising and falling races, nations, and ethnic groups, whereas for classical Chinese/Arab describe the cyclical rise and fall of dynasties. A latent feature of Western thought for the past three centuries is this racial 'clash' logic and it feeds into
I wonder why Land's PERSONIFICATION OF CAPITAL AS AN AI would behave according to CAPITALIST LOGIC.
Assuming capital is a sentient AI and it behaves according to its own logic, its still not clear that it will eradicate humans or that humans. In the West there's a deeply rooted fear of non-human intelligence. Western culture is built on the assumption that non-human intelligence does not exist unless it is produced by humans. If it did exist, it would be a racial threat to humans who must either control or defeat it. Of course, according to their own historical consciousness, Westerners prevailed by fighting and destroying a series of savage enemy races. Nick Land simply disagrees with the last part. He extends the 'expand or die' logic to humans, telling us humans will simply be rendered irrelevant by machines anyway.
The European Enlightenment made transgression a virtue. The more transgressive the speech, the sex act etc. the more pleasurable, freeing, and liberating for the self-defining individual. Land's philosophy just seems to be an extension of this established tradition to an extreme: the ultimate transgressive limit experience is self-destruction. So Land is really nothing more than an old fashioned liberal underneath.
Sigh... so first there is no colonizer mindset and now your telling me that there is one but its not Western.
False equivalence. Its curious that Westerners narrate history in terms of rising and falling races, nations, and ethnic groups, whereas for classical Chinese/Arab describe the cyclical rise and fall of dynasties. A latent feature of Western thought for the past three centuries is this racial 'clash' logic and it feeds into
Assuming capital is a sentient AI and it behaves according to its own logic, its still not clear that it will eradicate humans or that humans. In the West there's a deeply rooted fear of non-human intelligence. Western culture is built on the assumption that non-human intelligence does not exist unless it is produced by humans. If it did exist, it would be a racial threat to humans who must either control or defeat it. Of course, according to their own historical consciousness, Westerners prevailed by fighting and destroying a series of savage enemy races. Nick Land simply disagrees with the last part. He extends the 'expand or die' logic to humans, telling us humans will simply be rendered irrelevant by machines anyway.
The European Enlightenment made transgression a virtue. The more transgressive the speech, the sex act etc. the more pleasurable, freeing, and liberating for the self-defining individual. Land's philosophy just seems to be an extension of this established tradition to an extreme: the ultimate transgressive limit experience is self-destruction. So Land is really nothing more than an old fashioned liberal underneath.