14 responses to “The Dark Enlightenment by Nick Land”

1. While interesting to listen to — the unpacking of stasis meaning unto progressive meaning: the True Object toward which history always unfolds — Land is fully invested in the horizontal, seeing his plane as directionally dynamic while at the same time establishing his discourse upon its mono-pronounceable finitude. Even while he seems to offer a ‘new’ enlightenment called ‘dark enlightenment’, his whole proposal is s a game, a mental ideological masturbation ejaculating reactionary discourse in the all too ready arena of fear, making nothing better than an action movie proposed as substantial. Purely derived by his own enlightenment projected out onto the imagined reality, he is an agent of bad faith, a demagogue of sorcery and deceit: A priest of the democracy he argues against or away from; a true charlatan.

   • if you have any particular points of disagreement he’s quite open to discussion of his work (tho you might want to leave out the disparaging remarks about his character unless you have some knowledge of him as a person that I don’t know of), you can find him blogging away @ http://www.ufblog.net/

     • Lol. Cool thanks. I am indeed quite antagonistic at times. I think it might be due to my extensive period of intellectual isolation, from which only recently Iam emerging. Ill check it out.

       But also it is a necessary situation that I describe, the description that is the polemics involved in the antagonism.

       –
       And also Ina way it’s a childish way of getting attention. Probably not the best way, but being socially stunted is also a result of isolation.

       It appears the closer an author appears to exhibit my experience-knowledge, the more antagonistic I become. Kinda like Nietszche, who said he has a certain ease with history, but with his contemporaries he is disproportionally intolerant. 😛
       So I’m In an active process of describing and exemplifying all angles.

       But for sure, you have great postings.

     • … Maybe look at the post I just put about Alan Watts.

     • … And the points I disagree with of Land there , is the basis from which he makes his points, so to argue with his points is non sequitur to my point. In fact, given that his point of departure is real, his points are interesting. But stil ideological and based in the effective mythological tropes of technological distance and free agency. He is making a living, of course. He must argue the validity of the ideological myth as well as justify himself within it. Interesting. But real religious theology.

     • don’t have problem with people differing just prefer (at least here) that it be productive and to the point, we are all working out this blog/commenting thing as we go and for me the gossip (especially the groundless speculations/psycho-babble about authorial intentions) and cliques that have taken down many potentially good conversations are to be avoided.
       also I post a lot of stuff here that is in the vein of what we are doing (and is thoughtful like meta-physics, Process thought, etc) even if I disagree with it as part of the efforts to create new gestalts/assemblies, ever onward

     • Reading Lands link: it is not that I necessarily disagree with his formulations ; these philosophers are involved in term-networks, of situating real categories, of defining reality as and in the work in progress. But the appearance is that it has anything to do with my life and direct experience: It only does when I engage with it. And it is the religious evangelism that makes arguments that says I am merely putting my head in the sand. No. It is that Truly, such state discussions can be shown physically as well as psychicly to have no inclusive basis beyond their power to demand inclusion.

       But that is of a larger work. We all have each other.

     • So. Perhaps my more concrete question is: Who or what is enlightened, either dark or light? And then from there, what is he talking about then, specifically? What is your view on this, since I doubt Land would not refer his answer to myself attending some classes to ‘catch up’, assuming I am not informed. But I am being also too presumptive. Would you like ? I would like to have a discussion without my presumptions, involving real input, from you in this case.

     • … The more I listen to his report, the more I just say ” yeah that makes sense”. I think maybe it was you who a little bit ago had the Deluze report spoken by the computer voice . Likewise. I agreed with all that Deluzional reporting.

       • very good, a bit on the run these days but for a series of insightful posts on Nick and co. see:
         https://socialecologies.wordpress.com//?s=nick+land&search=Go

     • Godamm it I think I’m in love with Nick Land. Fuck he’s funny. But I figure his arm of the critique cannot be onesided, but must include that which is marginalized even in the first critique.

       I usually first hate the guy who is most like me. I’m just fkt up that way. Lol

       But: can we have a discussion about what enlightenment is?

2. Pingback: The Dark Enlightenment by Nick Land | Constructive Undoing·

3. Hey. Btw: do you know how they got the computer to read his text? How one mite do that ??

   • ah sorry no idea, i’m tech un-savvy as my better half says