web site hit counter Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings, 1987-2007 - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings, 1987-2007

Availability: Ready to download

Level 1, or world-space, is an anthropomorphically scaled, predominantly vision-configured, massively multi-slotted reality system that is obsolescing very rapidly. Garbage time is running out. Can what is playing you make it to Level 2? Fanged Noumena assembles for the first time the writings of Nick Land, variously described as 'rabid nihilism', 'Deleuzian Thatcherism', 'a Level 1, or world-space, is an anthropomorphically scaled, predominantly vision-configured, massively multi-slotted reality system that is obsolescing very rapidly. Garbage time is running out. Can what is playing you make it to Level 2? Fanged Noumena assembles for the first time the writings of Nick Land, variously described as 'rabid nihilism', 'Deleuzian Thatcherism', 'accelerationism', and 'cybergothic'. Wielding weaponised, machinically-recombined versions of Deleuze and Guattari, Reich and Freud, in the company of fellow 'werewolves' such as Nietzsche, Bataille, Artaud, Trakl, and Cioran, to a cut-up soundtrack of Bladerunner, Terminator, and Apocalypse Now, Land plotted a rigorously schizophrenic escape route out of academic philosophy, and declared all-out war on the Human Security System. Despite his 'disappearance', Land's output has been a crucial underground influence both on recent Speculative Realist thought, and on artists, writers, musicians, and filmmakers invigorated by his uncompromising and abrasive philosophical vision. Beginning with Land's radical rereadings of Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Kant, and ending with Professor Barker's cosmic theory of geo-trauma and neo-qabbalistic attempts to formulate a numerical anti-language, Fanged Noumena rescues from obscurity papers, talks and articles some of which have never previously appeared in print. Long the subject of rumour and vague legend, Land's turbulent post-genre theory-fictions of cybercapitalist meltdown smear cyberpunk, philosophy, arithmetic, poetics, cryptography, anthropology, grammatology, and the occult into unrecognisable and gripping hybrids. Fanged Noumena is a dizzying trip through Land's rigorous, incisive, and provocative work, establishing it as an indispensable resource for radically inhuman thought in the twenty-first century.


Compare

Level 1, or world-space, is an anthropomorphically scaled, predominantly vision-configured, massively multi-slotted reality system that is obsolescing very rapidly. Garbage time is running out. Can what is playing you make it to Level 2? Fanged Noumena assembles for the first time the writings of Nick Land, variously described as 'rabid nihilism', 'Deleuzian Thatcherism', 'a Level 1, or world-space, is an anthropomorphically scaled, predominantly vision-configured, massively multi-slotted reality system that is obsolescing very rapidly. Garbage time is running out. Can what is playing you make it to Level 2? Fanged Noumena assembles for the first time the writings of Nick Land, variously described as 'rabid nihilism', 'Deleuzian Thatcherism', 'accelerationism', and 'cybergothic'. Wielding weaponised, machinically-recombined versions of Deleuze and Guattari, Reich and Freud, in the company of fellow 'werewolves' such as Nietzsche, Bataille, Artaud, Trakl, and Cioran, to a cut-up soundtrack of Bladerunner, Terminator, and Apocalypse Now, Land plotted a rigorously schizophrenic escape route out of academic philosophy, and declared all-out war on the Human Security System. Despite his 'disappearance', Land's output has been a crucial underground influence both on recent Speculative Realist thought, and on artists, writers, musicians, and filmmakers invigorated by his uncompromising and abrasive philosophical vision. Beginning with Land's radical rereadings of Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Kant, and ending with Professor Barker's cosmic theory of geo-trauma and neo-qabbalistic attempts to formulate a numerical anti-language, Fanged Noumena rescues from obscurity papers, talks and articles some of which have never previously appeared in print. Long the subject of rumour and vague legend, Land's turbulent post-genre theory-fictions of cybercapitalist meltdown smear cyberpunk, philosophy, arithmetic, poetics, cryptography, anthropology, grammatology, and the occult into unrecognisable and gripping hybrids. Fanged Noumena is a dizzying trip through Land's rigorous, incisive, and provocative work, establishing it as an indispensable resource for radically inhuman thought in the twenty-first century.

30 review for Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings, 1987-2007

  1. 5 out of 5

    Maxwell

    Nick Land is a bizarre, frustrating & abysmally depressing theorist, and among whatever else he may be, one of the more remarkable stories of modern philosophy. The Afrofuturist thinker Kodwo Eshun asked ‘is Nick Land the most important British Philosopher of the last 20 years?’, and I think there’s a good case to be made that he is. But without in any sense housebreaking him. Roughly from ‘Kant, Capital and the Prohibition of Incest’ to ‘Making it with Death’, the key figure in Land’s work is B Nick Land is a bizarre, frustrating & abysmally depressing theorist, and among whatever else he may be, one of the more remarkable stories of modern philosophy. The Afrofuturist thinker Kodwo Eshun asked ‘is Nick Land the most important British Philosopher of the last 20 years?’, and I think there’s a good case to be made that he is. But without in any sense housebreaking him. Roughly from ‘Kant, Capital and the Prohibition of Incest’ to ‘Making it with Death’, the key figure in Land’s work is Bataille, whose death worship, libidinalized evil and ‘virulent nihilism’ hang over every word. Bataille’s rather theatrical eroticization of trauma is a climax that Land hits when these essays broil to white-hot with sickly pessimism; the membrane between loathing & desire becomes translucent before dissolving. These are intensities virtually encoded into the production of novelty, variable expressions of material creativity (with matter as primary process), not contradictions to be sublated but access points for self-differentiation through a non-dialectical negativity & synthesis. Bataille is a sophisticated & creative inheritance and these works are heterogenous, effusive & inventive, almost unhinged at points, but written with the formal logic of academic philosophy. If often of an unorthodox variety. The first essay, ‘Kant, Capital et al’, is a really iconic work, and simultaneously deserving of that reputation whilst also being a sore thumb, completely dissimilar in any way you might care to imagine from everything Land’s written since. This essay is heavily indebted to Sadie Plant’s cyberfeminism (‘if nature is oppressive, nature itself must be changed’) but twists the patriarchal injunction toward exogamy into a technomaterialist necessity for cyberfeminist guerillas as the subject of emancipatory praxis. This idea does not long survive the censorious renunciations in the body politic of Landian theory, but is less remarkable for its agreeable minoritarian politics (what, if anything, Land thinks about feminism now is probably best left unsaid), but far more head-turning for certain anthropomorphic biases--from here on out, humanism ‘is not even false’. ‘Spirit and Teeth’ indexes the Heideggerian-Derridean legacy, the anti-metaphysical ontologization of presence & absence as a limping, senescent indulgence. The fetishism of text, the enchantment of the everyday, the cautious and leisurely cartography of apparitions, marginalia and other hinterland-spaces is, for Land, the deformed progeny of a dull & pedantic academic etiquette. For all their claims to spectrality, Heidegger, Hegel & their heirs cannot deal with the truly unsightly and indeterminate, with plague rats & werewolves, hybrid bodies & diseases, real undecidability. Their conceptual register is inexpressive about transformation, mutiny, intensification & gangrenous decay; these philosophies are, foreshadowing Landian accelerationism, too slow. And it is in these early essays that it becomes apparent; Nick Land has never read Lacan. At least, not very well. Land’s anhedonic cosmos of delirium map across the ‘strange jungles’ of Freudian drives, but bemoans Lacan bulldozing them into a ‘structuralist parking lot’. Land hates the legacy of Saussurean linguistics in philosophy & pillories the signifier as fetish-icon for a false god, with both generations of structuralism as its charlatan hierophants. The thing is, Lacan isn’t really a structuralist or post-structuralist (not that that’s a bad thing--’some of my best friends’, etc), which everyone should know by now, and there is much to learn from his system about the false address of assumed truth. In fact, there is some overlap between Lacan’s topological gestures toward the Real and Land’s ‘outsideness’; the ‘human security system’ and the signifying chain have conceptual distinctness but are devised in essence to make intelligible the borders of possible subjective knowledge concerning the glut of unknowable, unwritable dark matter--noumena, if you’re nasty. Mark Fisher, Nick Land’s student from the CCRU days at Warwick in the 90s, called Lacan’s ideas ‘Weird Psychoanalysis’, which could describe some of Land’s use of Freud as well--Land wryly remarks ‘if the unconscious is structured like a language, that is only because language has the pattern of a plague’, and I’m not actually sure Lacan would disagree. The way that Deleuzo-Guattarian schizoanalysis is used to prosecute theorization beyond the ‘anthropomorphic shallows’, always to falter & fail at some new stratification, the borders of a territory, is not so different from Lacan’s inscription of lack onto every object of knowledge (Land will touch more on the limits of these ventures into regions once declared mysterious, via quantum physics & Qaballa, in the later essays--but without reference to Lacan). These ideas have complexly individual structuration, but they’re not so dissimilar as for one to be necessarily true & the other inherently ridiculous; the Deleuzian doth protest too much. (Of course, Land is advocating a cessation of all barriers & limitations on the acceleration of granular materiality, coded here as ‘the production of production’; biographical details of Land’s burnout & breakdown in the late 90s suggest bodily limitations regarding advocacy of this project) I don’t think the Deleuzo-Guattarian break from psychoanalysis is fully convincing anyway, and neither does Nick Land (he just prefers Freud to Lacan); in fact, Oedipus is a dynamic and protean conceptual battery rather than a structuralist handicap. And the Freud of ‘Beyond the Pleasure Principle’, specifically the death drive, becomes the animus of Land’s system; ‘the hydraulic tendency toward the dissipation of intensities’, death as the subject of life rather than its consequence, a thanatropic oriented ontology, simultaneously the moment of absolute difference & indifference. On this note, besides the occasional assemblage, flow or territorialization, the inheritance from Deleuze is at this point subtle, more apparent in methodological & organizational components than on the level of explicit reference. There is far more productive interaction with Bataille, Kant & Freud. Unfortunately, this will not be the case for long. The later essays migrate between syncretic interdisciplinary theory, avant-garde fiction, outright lies, dubious mathematics, apocalyptic prophecy & cyberpunk Deleuzian gibberish, often flip flopping between all these modes on a single page, all coagulating into a sometimes-brilliant, sometimes-unreadable composite body of luminous schizophrenic nonsense. But there are certainly ideas here; ‘Making it with Death’ recapitulates death as the motor behind the triumphs and catastrophes of libido, ‘Cybergothic’ posits that dark & depressing genre work (like Blade Runner, Neuromancer & Apocalypse Now) is a blitzkrieg assault from the future, leveling & burning our cherished sentimentalities to prepare us for encroaching post-human nightmares. ‘Circuitries’ marked the point where Land’s disturbed catastrophizing had actual deleterious effects on my mental health; not to be melodramatic, but the violent misanthropy & shatteringly nihilistic gnosticism started to overpower my ability to metabolize them. This is the essay where the ‘preposterous humanism’ of the Hegelian-socialist tradition is chewed up between a rictus grin, humiliated as a doddering senility; to be conceptually usurped by ‘cyberpositivity’ a tactical acceptance of Land’s prophecy of post-singularity human extinction & the triumphant ascendancy of machine Archons. If geist, spirit, dasein, the subject of history, etc. ever existed, they are not implanted in the frail human subject any longer. But the terminus of anthropoid civilization as plugged into world-historical meaning & significance will probably only be evident when we die screaming in the clawed hands of cyber-Azathoth. ‘Meltdown’ is regarded as Land’s mission statement, a work which precedes itself; ‘The story goes like this: Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity’, ‘Neo-China arrives from the future’, ‘Garbage time is running out’ are all memeified into the deep grammar of accelerationism, be it Left, Right, Techno-Leninism, U/ACC, #altwoke or any of the other countless blogosphere anti-praxis pablum. This is where he goes about proving his idea of the hyperstition, a fiction which makes itself real, but Land has certain limitations as an author of fiction; an operatic leadeness conveyed through a jittery adrenalized style. I mean, I like it, but if the goal is for a concept to drag its unpleasant contents into mainstream popularity as a ghostly premonition, are equally abrasive & outré stylistics the best mode of conveyance? The totality of people who believe that ‘capital is an alien invader from the future’ also have book deals with Urbanomic. Except me. The last few essays drift into Cthulhu, Qabala, numerology and geotraumatics. ‘Barker Speaks’ is eye-catching, the first hyperstition which really works, an interview with a fictive heretical academic on geotrauma--‘phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny’ for encrypted aboriginal trauma, all terrestrial anguish as the genetic memory of violent planetary destruction & reformation during the Hadean period. For a split second I believed Barker was a real academic but was disabused of this, not by the prima facie absurdity of the theory, but because, well, no one writes sentences like these but Nick Land, straining Barker's fictional credibility. ‘Introduction to Qwertynomics’ stands out as well, integrating the random assembly of the keyboard into chaos theory, ‘the blind idiot God, whose meaningless pipings lead all semiotic disciplines into the bubbling abyss of futile insanity’. Land’s flair for nonlinear & destratified numericity may be risible to actual mathematicians but it accomplishes great speculative labors here. These occulted patterns of connectivity independent of logical regimentation is followed through in ‘Qaballa 101’ where ‘no polemic against numerology--whether conducted in the name of qabbala or of oecumenic common reason--will transcend the magmic qabbalistic flux that multiplies and mutates its sense. Perhaps dreams of numerological archetypes even sharpen the lust for semiotic invention, opening new avenues for qabbalistic incursion. But this at least is certain: Numbers do not require--and will never find--any kind of logical redemption. They are an eternal hypercosmic delight.’ The cyber-texts are what made Land famous, and I read them with fascination, but some part of me mourned the coherence & rigor, not to mention the (generally) agreeable political animus, of the earlier work. On the level of formalism, I may have lowkey conservative values because occasionally I’d find the Mad Scientist quality of the later essays ugly & unpleasant, perhaps more for their experimental, chaotic disorganization than the cryptofascist politics. Frankly, I like academic philosophy and sentences like ‘Techno-commercial interaction between planet-scale oceanic-navigation and zero-enabled mathematico-monetary calculation machinically singularises modernity or sol-3 capitalism as a real individual’, made me miss wrestling with Hegel; I mean, any essay after the halfway point is just aggressively perforated with hyphens. These jumbles of portmanteau words cannot be comprehensively glued together into the rhythm of reading, so you’re left to disrupt the flow of language to slowly ingest every bizarre neologism, or read at your normal pace and only get a sketchy outline of the complexity. I tend toward the former, but there may be something to recommend reading Land as an impressionist. Nick Land was trying to do Deleuze ‘without the Bergsonianism’; while reading I wondered, is it possible to do Nick Land without the Deleuzianism? Given Deleuze’s extravagant popularity in 2018 I am perhaps alone in wishing for this, but some of the flouncy neologisms, conceptual personae and overstuffed syntax, imported from Capitalism & Schizophrenia, wore on my nerves. But then I began to wonder if Nick Land isn’t encumbered by the Deleuzo-Guattarian theoretical lexicon, but instead the rational telos of these faddish techniques. The more of Fanged Noumena you read, the more apparent it becomes that the libidinal event horizon of schizoanalysis, rhizomatics, creating the Body without Organs--whatever you want to call it--is this cryptofascist cosmic libertarianism. This is the most honest expression of Deleuze that I can find, the most sincere & rigorous elaboration of his philosophy; Fanged Noumena is the only real heir to Anti-Oedipus, even more so than the retrograde timidity of A Thousand Plateaus. In fact, Nick Land without Deleuze is not the problem; Deleuze without Nick Land is the problem. To my mind, Accelerationism is the elephant graveyard of schizo-politics, the crash landing of vitalism in a dead world. Nick Land is the werewolf-other under the latex mask of avuncular & benevolent biopunk sycophants. But on the nuts-and-bolts level of philosophy, is Nick Land stymied by conceptual intelligibility? Does it really make sense to deregulate markets as fecund soil for the production of novelty eventually hypostatizing into autonomous machine intelligences? Not in a moral sense as is the obvious objection (because it clearly doesn’t), but as a formal philosophical delineation? In fact, the idea of a proliferating ahuman materialism, a transcendental-noumenal process somehow impeded to sluggishness by human blundering, has some formal incoherencies. Nevermind how squeamish we may feel about the incumbent machine-despotism, Land’s philosophical work is undermined by mistakes in reasoning. I find Ray Brassier’s observation of Land’s unintentional paradox vis-a-vis the fusion of the personal & impersonal, untrammeled by the political, apropos & worth quoting at length; "Here I think a fundamental contradiction, a conceptual incoherence emerges: how can you intensify when there is no longer anything left to intensify? If your schizoanalytical practice is fuelled by the need to always intensify and deterritorialize, there comes a point at which there is no agency left: you yourself have been dissolved back into the process. Once secondary production has been re-integrated or feeds back into primary production, ironically what you have is a bizarre mimesis of the serpent of absolute knowledge, except this time, it’s the serpent of absolute production. The point is that organically individuated human subjects cannot position themselves vis-a-vis this circuit or this process. It’s happening without you anyway. It doesn’t need you. The very concept of agency is stripped out. There’s a quote of Land’s: “it’s happening anyway and there is nothing you can do about it.” Something is working through you, there is nothing you can do about it, so you might as well fuse. This is a philosophical problem. It’s a retention of this romantic, Schopenhauerian idea of fusion between the personal and impersonal, the individuated subject and cosmic schizophrenia, the impersonal primary process. But for Schopenhauer it still makes sense to postulate that. The moment at which the will turns against itself governs Schopenhauer’s whole ethical and practical philosophy. For Land, there is no longer any kind of fulcrum for the point of reversion, the conversion from secondary to primary process, because there are no individuated bearers left any more. This convergence does not unfold at the level of experience. In that regard, the whole vocabulary of intensification and disintensification becomes redundant. The paradox is simply this: under what conditions could you will the impossibility of willing? How could you affirm that which incapacitates all affirmation?" By translating some of these practical antinomies into philosophical language, and reproducing this stalemate on the level of representation, you give yourself permission to repose in despairing futility. And, I mean, that’s what Land's depressed grad student readers were doing anyway. Attempts to reform Landianism, to domesticate his diseased antihumanism into a manageable & productive social responsibility, range from asinine to pointless. Nick Srnicek (incidentally, does anyone know how to pronounce his name?) and the left-accelerationist advocates for neoliberal domination somehow receding its global hegemony for cupcake communism (fully automated luxury gay space...oh shut the fuck up) have the distinction of being outsmarted by a decaying eugenicist with dementia. If the buffet of leftist dismantling of their cloying, kitschy optimism isn’t sufficient, Nick Land’s own critique of their anodyne idiocies is sadly compelling. If Landianism must be useful somehow, it is as a useful enemy, a source of productive tension. Nick Land cannot be integrated into the lefist consensus in contemporary theory & philosophy. But he does make a good adversary for these tendencies. Srnicek, certain of the lingering CCRU members, left-accelerationists, the U/ACC epicureans & others engage Nick Land by trying to reform him, to try and tease humanism (of various degrees) out of his poisonously nihilist ambit, to somehow cull his violent hydraulic power into manageable tributaries. It was easy for Land to convert Deleuze & Guattari to hellish antihumanism, but all who try to similarly make Land’s work a double agent, to set his flows of hyper-capitalist entropy in reverse, either reverts to Deleuzian vitalism (extinguishing the point of involving Land in the first place) or to a flaccid passivity in the face of his frightening eventualities. Ironically this is the civilizing practice of empire, the strip-mining of new territories for usable resources, the erasure of foreign practices & carnivorous ingestion of raw materials at the expense of its environment & context. The resources of Nick Land’s philosophy are scarcely understood before his graverobbers reanimate them in service of his obverse ideological archenemy. Nick Land was not an exciting moral thinker who wandered from the consecrated road, he is an exciting immoral thinker whose profane fidelity to a sacrilegious worship of speed & intensity was followed through to its necessary end. Those who would try to rescue Nick Land from himself should at least consider--was it not his very reactionary immoralism, his fundamental incompatibility with sacrosanct leftist norms, precisely what attracted you to him in the first place? On the other hand, sometimes I think Nick Land’s continued fascination is reducible to grad students feeling like ugly misfits in academia but also knowing that no one else, not even Neo-China, is likely to extend their hospitality toward you. Nick Land believe(d)(s) in philosophy, saying that it would survive as long as humanity would; he despised its compact with academia but was unable to imagine another situation for it to survive in. I can’t think of one either. Land enunciated this problem very well (dare I call it the lack constitutive of the object) using a figurative & stylized pulp language, Lovecraftian, occultist and profoundly cool. This tacit sympathy for outsiders, contaminated as it would become in strange reactionary bullshit, is a more authentic minoritarian politics than the inert utopias from Deleuzianism’s overwrought vogue. There is a stench of insincerity about the Gaia-sentimentality of contemporary ecocriticism, the wearying retreading of hippie politics in animal studies; and, well, if literally nothing else, Nick Land is sincere. When you look at even his earliest essays, which strongly suggest that we are living on borrowed time & overdue for extinction, and still feel betrayed by the nastiness of his contemporary positions--well, did you think he didn’t mean it?

  2. 5 out of 5

    Sahelanth

    This book collects Nick Land's writings from when he was immersed in academic philosophy and amphetamines. At its best it is hallucinatory, intense, and terrifyingly persuasive. Land's colleague Robin Mackay wrote "Let’s get this out of the way: In any normative, clinical, or social sense of the word, very simply, Land did ‘go mad.’" This is so, and it made for some extraordinarily creative thought. Unfortunately, Land's late work is inarticulate, and his post-recovery work is racist and boring, This book collects Nick Land's writings from when he was immersed in academic philosophy and amphetamines. At its best it is hallucinatory, intense, and terrifyingly persuasive. Land's colleague Robin Mackay wrote "Let’s get this out of the way: In any normative, clinical, or social sense of the word, very simply, Land did ‘go mad.’" This is so, and it made for some extraordinarily creative thought. Unfortunately, Land's late work is inarticulate, and his post-recovery work is racist and boring, a cyberpunk Charles Murray. Land's most interesting work is "Meltdown" and "Machinic Desire." They are in this collection, but you can easily find them outside it. If you've read them, the other works here just don't add much - though his critique of Derrida for not being a werewolf is worth the price of admission.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Eric Phetteplace

    A dizzying, enthralling book that mixes theory, cyberpunk fiction, and poetry. At parts, it reads like what I always thought the poetry of the 21st Century should be: multisyllabic, schizophrenic, off balance, punctuation as a weapon (Land loves parentheses and uses them to great effect). Even the weird dip into Qabbala and other mystical number-alphabet relations at the end is pretty compelling, though perhaps non-math people would be bored. The only weak portion of the book is the first few es A dizzying, enthralling book that mixes theory, cyberpunk fiction, and poetry. At parts, it reads like what I always thought the poetry of the 21st Century should be: multisyllabic, schizophrenic, off balance, punctuation as a weapon (Land loves parentheses and uses them to great effect). Even the weird dip into Qabbala and other mystical number-alphabet relations at the end is pretty compelling, though perhaps non-math people would be bored. The only weak portion of the book is the first few essays, which are rather uninteresting critiques of Kant (because we need more of that), but they do serve to ground the less conventional writing which follows. Overall, an incomparable work of hyperstition, matched only by Negarestani's Cyclonopedia which rather unashamedly follows in the same style. Never has a book made me fear for its author's sanity more.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Duarte

    Land's work is... interesting. On the one hand, it's very easy to paint his newest articles as "Nick Land shits out another portion of reactionary, obfuscatory muh accelerationism bullshit, more news at 11", but I think that would be overlooking this bizarre, hard-to-read but ultimately fascinating philosopher. For starters, what even is Nick Land, and what's his end goal? Well, that's a tricky question. For starters, while he is a reactionary now (and even that is arguable, because he may be a p Land's work is... interesting. On the one hand, it's very easy to paint his newest articles as "Nick Land shits out another portion of reactionary, obfuscatory muh accelerationism bullshit, more news at 11", but I think that would be overlooking this bizarre, hard-to-read but ultimately fascinating philosopher. For starters, what even is Nick Land, and what's his end goal? Well, that's a tricky question. For starters, while he is a reactionary now (and even that is arguable, because he may be a post-ironic Marxist trying to rile up opposition against capital by portraying it as horrifically as possible), in the works here presented in this big ass collection he's reactionary only insofar that he's not defending accelerationism as a pathway to Marxism. He's really only reactionary insofar as people mostly avoid the direction he is going for (total annihilation of mankind in favor of the capital). It's basically the ultimate nihilist thesis of "rooting for humanity might feel good but we're all doomed so let us jump into the abyss". Hence the "virulent nihilism" is work is often times referred as. But that's what he isn't, not what he is, so let's ask ourselves what Land actually is. His endgoal seems to be Utter Transhumanism with absolutely zero regards for morals, under the rationale that we must leave our mortal, rotten bodies behind if we want to strive in this universe. Hence the influence of Bataille (transgressing against ourselves) and Nietzsche (pretty obvious): "Bataille incinerates the soul, and is impossible to endure. You either die or go somewhere else. Or both." (No Future) So, with that said, he seems to be a transhumanist, right? Due to the "transcendence above all" morale. Well, if that was the case, then a question raises it's head: Don't those mortal bodies, which Land so seems to want to transcend, also supply the creative impulse to do everything in the first place? Create capital, globalization, space shuttles, etc. Even transhumanists will still follow a biological imperative, no? What would be the point of living forever, like a head in a jar, if you couldn't appreciate things aesthetically, fall in love, enjoy galactic tourism and so on? The answer to that is that it's not supposed to have a point. His position holds that we are hosts to the capital, and only temporarily so. We shall fade, but it shall remain, once it is fully automated. But he really doesn't seem to be a transhumanist, either, but he's close enough for everyone to think so, methinks. He likes Thiel and Thiel wants to live forever. He channels the immortal spirit of capital through him like a fever. Maybe he's just not very good at transhumanism, since for him everything dies in the end in a meltdown and that goes against core principals of transhumanism. or perhaps he's better at it than most people with cliché readings of transhumanism. Overall, he seems to be more into post-humanism than transhumanism. If you were to actually analyze his writing, he seems to actually be a post scarcity Maoist, and this is why he only gets away with his shit because that viewpoint is incredibly rare, so people view it as they view a novelty. Which leads me on to why i enjoy his writing despite disagreeing with him so much. For starters, he actually does try to make his philosophy a reality (in the silliest way possible, read Nick Land – An Experiment in Inhumanism, by a former student of his), instead of so many so-called "philosophers" on the right whose pathetic writing is nothing but the most hypocritical and unself-aware whining (AnCaps are particularly bad about this). To advance his ideology, he has given us a concise definition of a largely unknown theory that didn't really exist before he came along. He's connecting different threads that were already there, and now he's trimming the corners and polishing up the edges and so on, so we can have a word, a concept for this thing, which is exactly what a philosopher should do. This "thing", a kind of zombie marxism where capital itself just needs to eliminate people. In short, Nick Land writes what he writes because he wants to accelerate technology to the point where we can be immortal before he croaks. Car accidents, nuclear bombs and bullets are invented and it seems quite clear we are not yet evolved to deal with these threats. You can imagine a thousand years of exposure to radiation or high impact collisions would natural select for humans who could best resist these dangers, but we don't have that time. We're inventing dangers faster than we can adapt natural defenses. As weird and crypto-marxist Land is, he's one of the few philosophers that really dared to further advance and turn Marxism on its head just like Marx did to Hegelian Idealism, one of the philosophers today that are truly memorable and not utterly mediocre and superfluous. Speaking of Hegel, be warned, because Land's writings are just as incomprehensible as Hegel's. It reads like what would happen if Philip K Dick performed a facial on Georges Bataille. Quite simply, regardless of what you think of his philosophy, his writings still manages to be incredibly fun to read. The biggest problem with his philosophy is the dilemma that marxists (including spergs like Land) have to deal with is most people do not want change, because modern western capitalism is an easy life. People do not go hungry, and the only way the current marxist academics can think to push for revolution is by creating lots of whatifisms. Combine that with the growth of mass communication, marxists are frustrated when they don't see the rise of revolution anymore, primarily because they're so detached that they don't see life is actually getting better for most of society, or rather, people think so.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Uxküll

    Puerile or profound? I tend towards the latter. This tome is quite difficult to categorize, it eludes ready description as the contents are protean and dense to say the least. Land infuses nearly every page with a ferocity which is reminiscent of his confidants: D&G, Bataille and Nietzsche. With themes as varied as a close reading of Heidegger's thoughts on Trakl's poetry to Chthonic/Cuthuloid hyperstition (theory-fiction) and much more. Anyone interested in heterodox philosophy, Deleuze & Guatt Puerile or profound? I tend towards the latter. This tome is quite difficult to categorize, it eludes ready description as the contents are protean and dense to say the least. Land infuses nearly every page with a ferocity which is reminiscent of his confidants: D&G, Bataille and Nietzsche. With themes as varied as a close reading of Heidegger's thoughts on Trakl's poetry to Chthonic/Cuthuloid hyperstition (theory-fiction) and much more. Anyone interested in heterodox philosophy, Deleuze & Guattari, or weird fiction a la Lovecraft will want to have read this anthology. A "Mad Black Deleuzian" he may be, but he's our Mad Black Deleuzian, and so much the better (worse).

  6. 5 out of 5

    Abbie

    I ended up reading most of this stuck in a parked car without heat on the day Minnesota decided to have snow in April, which I think was the universe's punishment for my decision that reading Nick Land was a good idea. I ended up reading most of this stuck in a parked car without heat on the day Minnesota decided to have snow in April, which I think was the universe's punishment for my decision that reading Nick Land was a good idea.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Paul Town

    First things first: This book sucks. There are interesting things written in it, hidden beneath layers of poorly written schizobabble (from drug abuse that rotted Nick Land's midwit brain out before he could form any actually new ideas) and pseudo-intellectual prose, but you'll get more value than can be tediously extracted from this waste of paper by spending your time staring at a wall or hitting your head repeatedly with a hammer. If you want to get the gist of this book, read Henri Bergson, 1 First things first: This book sucks. There are interesting things written in it, hidden beneath layers of poorly written schizobabble (from drug abuse that rotted Nick Land's midwit brain out before he could form any actually new ideas) and pseudo-intellectual prose, but you'll get more value than can be tediously extracted from this waste of paper by spending your time staring at a wall or hitting your head repeatedly with a hammer. If you want to get the gist of this book, read Henri Bergson, 1960s texts on cybernetics, Battaille, and Deluze. There you will find the entirety of Land's mangled garbled thought, but actually coherent and well written and interesting. Land suffers from a sort of gate-keeping that is the result of thinking his knowledge is special or profound when it's really not. What he wanted to say could have been summed up in under fifty pages if it was written by a competent writer, but unfortunatly mister Land is a degenerate drug addled moron who doesn't understand the first thing about language or even what he's talking about, hence the fractured and frankly stupid way in which he presents partial and incorrect snapshots of other peoples' ideas. Save your time and money by getting a pdf of this book if you are even thinking about buying it and you will quickly see how accurate this review is. The majority of this book is only able to be parsed by people who have experience with stimulant based psychosis, and the ones who can will be able to tell you how fucking stupid and incompetent a thinker Nick Land is. There are entire pages of schizotypal diagrams and charts and 733T H4Ck3R syntax, all the work of somebody who doesn't really know what it means to create quality anything and instead opts for cheap tricks in a desperate attempt to appear profound. Nick Land is the moldy McDonald's rotting half-eaten hamburger version of accelerationism, and the complete mediocrity of his life outside of fooling psueds is a testament to this fact. This book sucks!

  8. 4 out of 5

    R Montague

    Land confuses me, and more importantly (disastrously?) Land confuses me about me. Put in a way that is not meaningless word garbage, Land forces me to question the meanings and coherences that underpin my thinking. When I see what Land advocates for, the methods he supports, and the cult following he has developed, I want to hate him. I want to be able to pick his arguments apart and dismiss his conclusions and summarily banish him to the world of pink haired televangelists and Big Oil executive Land confuses me, and more importantly (disastrously?) Land confuses me about me. Put in a way that is not meaningless word garbage, Land forces me to question the meanings and coherences that underpin my thinking. When I see what Land advocates for, the methods he supports, and the cult following he has developed, I want to hate him. I want to be able to pick his arguments apart and dismiss his conclusions and summarily banish him to the world of pink haired televangelists and Big Oil executives, but... I can’t... His reasoning is strong and his argument is stylish and tight. I usually find myself in agreement with broad swaths. So where the hell is the disconnect? It’s like I’m with him most of the way, then somewhere I hit a screeching wall of Nope and find myself on the opposite side of the ideological battlefield wondering how the hell this came to be. I don’t get it. I don’t Land. I don’t get me.

  9. 5 out of 5

    Robert Something

    Welcome to the philosophy of the amphetamine. This massive monument to the intellectual power (read: collapse) of philosopher Nick Land (or Vauung?) is impossible to summarize. Melding transcendental materialist philosophy, deconstruction, psychoanalysis, would-be prophetic sci-fi, cyberpunk poetry, neo-Qabbalistic numerology, and so many other threads into a textile weave that simply will not stand for any repressions or Idealist speculations characteristic of the "Human Security System"... So Welcome to the philosophy of the amphetamine. This massive monument to the intellectual power (read: collapse) of philosopher Nick Land (or Vauung?) is impossible to summarize. Melding transcendental materialist philosophy, deconstruction, psychoanalysis, would-be prophetic sci-fi, cyberpunk poetry, neo-Qabbalistic numerology, and so many other threads into a textile weave that simply will not stand for any repressions or Idealist speculations characteristic of the "Human Security System"... So many of our moralists like to decry the influence of orthodox applied Darwinism (with its contemporary New Atheist products), but such libertarian ideologues with their cold phlegmatic calculative thinking would shrink to the zero-point of oblivion in front of Landian (anti-)thought as just more moralists. The mechanistic temporal order of natural selection - hell, even the oddities of quantum fluctuation - are, simply put, rendered absolutely inconsequential when one delves into Landian materialism. They're "all too human". A vacuous plane of pure energetic intensities occasionally birthing multiplicities - molecules, organisms, planets, natural laws - is always on the verge of breaking out again from the unfathomable depths of the past and the schizophrenic backward-projection "return" of the future, both the same on such a purely intensive scale. Aborting its egocentric products. Capitalism as a mode of production is nothing - metropolitan industrialism, patriarchal lineage, Oedipus, nationalism, all these formations are simply brief fluctuations of the incomprehensible void, the first death, the matter-before-matter, and its destratifying abortive tactics. Production-for-production and nothing else. Humans are pale relics to be dissolved into the metahistorical, metamaterial post-cybernetic feedback loop of deterritorialization, the force of pure, unrepresentable difference moving within itself, unceasingly reaching out to absorb more violent otherness from the excess it incessantly produces, dismantling the paltry negative feedback controls we try desperately to retain with our politics and our theories, a purely active machinic void growing larger and larger until our higher-order technological developments reach a state of singularity at which primordial death would be fully actualized at the very point when it has fully virtualized anything recognizable as matter or form. The magmic iron interior stratum of the earth's ancient core - dubbed Cthelll - is the first manifestation of psychological torment as "geotraumatics", of which our own primordial sufferings are only virtual reflections. Even ordinal numbering systems, along with our other bases of rationality, are inadequate to confront the traumatic forces brewing on the margins, artificial constructs to be completely dismantled by purely pulsive sequences of "tics", the most fundamental manifestation of number (reflecting pure intensities, resistant to all quantification), a novel system of non-representation which undermines the possibilities of mathematical enterprise and Kantian synthetic reasoning alike - first the Qabbalists, then Kurt Gödel with his famous incompleteness theorem, reveal that lurking beneath the rigorous veneer of our computational habits is the possible (and therefore inevitable) irruption of alien, Chthulhu-like unreason, an unimaginable violence, which, after all, is all we are found to be composed of, in spite of our desperate self-flagellating organicism. Heard of the cogsci debates surrounding the "hard problem of consciousness" and the eliminative materialist attempts to "explain it away"? Bad news for the latter group - the biological organism is to undergo a similar but much more disturbing fate, not "explained away" so much as systematically destroyed. "Top down" thinking may be inadequate, but here everything is "bottom up" to such an extreme as to begin (and end) with a death beyond death. Finally, time itself is merely a higher-order consequence of the horizontal non-sequential fluctuations of rhizomes, pure multiplicities, creating space within themselves through crude mappings of aleatoric desire vectors, building their own abstract machines (just to give them something to finally destroy, it would seem - the nomad war machine). If all this sounds absurd - and it often reads like nonsense, it's true - one should bear in mind that all these neurotic reflections arise from purely rationalistic philosophical reflections. The first half or so of the pieces in this collection read like surprisingly formal Derridean deconstructions of the systems of Kant, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, and even Heidegger and other such "postmodern" thinkers - this, despite Land's apparent disgust with Derrida's controlled contemplative habits. He's always looking for hints of an uncontrollable irrationality boiling beneath the surface of transcendental systems. Instead of taking these hints as examples of the différance that moves the Logos, however, Land gradually builds them up into the above-described monstrosity of the indomitable force of unreason as the intensive ground of all rational organization. This transgression of the limits of rationality, however, will not confine itself to "critique", to challenging certain philosophers: eventually, all of the natural sciences, from genetics to geology, from physics to abstract mathematics, will be rewritten in the terms of this unthinkable primordial intensity. Land is no longer just attacking our theories. He is attacking nature itself, the presumed artificiality of the entire universe and its structures. In a way, he is carrying DeleuzoGuattarian schizoanalysis to its ends (and beyond), but they aren't sacred either - he isn't afraid to constantly borrow their vocabulary while tearing them to pieces for their humanistic, anthropomorphizing tendencies. Bataille and Artaud, favorites of Derrida, essential touchstones for any thinking of pure excess, are subjected to more radical readings than ever before. Eventually it seems as if Land is crafting new languages, and at such a dizzying velocity that the "overcoding" he insists upon prevents us from following much at all, and that's just as well, for Land himself is doing this because he keeps finding barriers to be crushed. Barriers to... what? All in the name of these nameless non-entities which, in the wake of Land's delirium, come to use and abuse him, turning him into a prophet for their own project: void. It should be no wonder, then, that at some point in the text, he starts to write from fictional perspectives, in the last instance giving us his sad reflections on how he has been completely taken over by something which is not him. He has become an it. A vehicle, if even. A self-induced shizophrenic synthesis of Vauung and "the ruins". Where is Nick Land now? A cyber-reactionary living quietly in Shanghai, tweeting occasionally about "unconditional accelerationism" or u/acc (for which he's become the godfather), a rather bland epistemologizing of the problems of the information age, along with dabbling pathetically in some alt-right "sentiments", if we can call them that - what is the alt-right, after all, but the info-age neoliberal method of capturing transgressive impulses and rerouting them toward reactionary ends? We can't help but wonder how this happened. In FN, Land viciously denounces anything remotely fascistic as a pathetic attempt of the Human Security System to rein in beautiful, terrifying chaos. In fact, while he has half-jokingly disavowed his earliest essay "Kant, Capital, and the Prohibition of Incest", its arguments that xenophobia, nationalism, and patriarchy are all to be cast aside because they interfere with our radically anarchic libidinal potentials crop up in subtle assertions through the entire collection. Post-human technofuture, however nihilating in the last instance, was always to be an unleashing of genderless but feminine energies. He has insisted that he has no recollection of most of these old writings, and intimated that he simply couldn't sustain that drug-fueled love for all things chaos. Fair enough. And I can't help but suspect that he's underestimated the force of the Logos - certainly enough to be caught up in it today, anyway. I tend to delve into transgressive thought-spirals myself, but my skepticism here ensures that I'm not a radical materialist at the end of the day... certainly not while biopower continues to be wielded so violently by world economic and political powers. For the old Land, no human violence could ever be violent "enough". I'm not so sure. But Fanged Noumena may very well be the most vital (anti-)philosophical project of our times, for better or worse, complete with a personality cult that could one day rank up there with that of a Nietzsche, always invigorating as he was problematic. We need to keep working to find more politically potent but radical ways to incorporate the forces of transgression into liberating gestures. That is, if we don't want the Nick Land way to have the last word. And that's something that, try as we might, we could never want. He would say it makes no difference anyway. I don't know.

  10. 4 out of 5

    Derek

    Land's work in the CCRU was an attempt similar to Nietzsche's Will to Power; to discard judgement and critique in an attempt to come up with a philosophy of pure immanence. However, unlike Nietzsche, Land is armed with Deleuze, cybernetic theory, amphetamines, techno nightclubs, and cyberpunk novels. With such immense potency, will he create the work which will transform god? Or will he just devolve into worthless technobabble? According to Land, what Kant really shows is that transcendental judg Land's work in the CCRU was an attempt similar to Nietzsche's Will to Power; to discard judgement and critique in an attempt to come up with a philosophy of pure immanence. However, unlike Nietzsche, Land is armed with Deleuze, cybernetic theory, amphetamines, techno nightclubs, and cyberpunk novels. With such immense potency, will he create the work which will transform god? Or will he just devolve into worthless technobabble? According to Land, what Kant really shows is that transcendental judgements are impossible, and transcendental judgements are philosophy. Thus, critique and judgement are meaningless; the world just plays itself out as it will. What this tells him is that he must dispose of every part of thought that is "human" - Put the "rat" back in rationalism. Fortunately, and this is Land's strength, he was actually capable of producing some interesting insights from this. If you can entertain the notion that a philosophy of Pure Immanence is possible, and you decenter human judgement, needs, wants, and prejudices from your thought and you might to start see some threats that weren't there. While we as humans may not possess the knowledge, perhaps there are higher forms of intelligence, lurking in our very own shadows that do. If they did, what would this mean? It would mean that that they have complete and utter control. Capitalism as a mind-virus that has captured humanity and is willing its evolution into existence from the future. Runaway processes in a network that overpower any counterforce. Societies of Control are PROGRAMMATIC. The universe. Is. Programmatic. "Foucault delineates the contours of power as a strat­egy without a subject: ROM locking learning in a box. Its enemy is a tactics without a strategy, replacing the politico-territorial imagery of conquest and resistance with nomad-micromilitary sabotage and evasion, reinforcing intelligence." Such notions are intensely frightening, and also act as a potentially valauble hermeneutic to anyone still up for revolution. The question then becomes... was Land right? Are we really fucked? Are we experiencing the fucking meltdown right now? HIV infected asian-latino transgender hookers with cinematic 9mms? No, not quite. The world is quite a bit more boring than that! Land in the middle of this book is quite the void worshiper. This book is basically a schizoanalytic art project that at its fever pitch manifests as a quite serious death worship. Because of this Land's reading of Deleuze and Guatarri's philosophy, that which he bases about 50% of his work on, is, in my opinion, quite prejudiced. If the desiring machines are at the bottom of capital's infinite proliferation, how can capitalism possibly squash desire out of existence without dying? How can it be decentered from humanity? Desire is the essence of man says Spinoza, and this line is practically the germ of Deleuze's thought for the entirety of Capitalism and Schizophrenia. We aren't computers it turns out. Well, not until we figure out how to program desire, and well, you get back to me when they do. When you realize that Land's phantasmic anti-human style is rooted in simple pseudoscientific simulacrum, Fanged Noumena loses a lot of its edge But man what an edge. Some of those opening pieces are really quite dark, and a few of the pieces in the middle period such as Meltdown and Cybergothic are a ride, and are entertaining, if not only for how rapidly and precisely Nick can list some crazy cyberpunk technobabble, but the last quarter of the book is really a bore, and quite obviously a time when he was coming down from those insane highs he must have felt, tripping on god knows what, dancing to jungle in an underground club, worshipping Thanatos in the form of a grey nanotechnological goo. Dionysus himself would have been proud.

  11. 4 out of 5

    Larry Ggggggggggggggggggggggggg

    Land constantly overloads the senses; whether he is talking about alphanumerics, fantasizing about a dystopia filled with Turing cops and narcotic abusing genderless cyber punks, or exploring the oedipus of the anthropocene, Land constantly forces the reader to engage or at the very least submit to the effects of his jarring schizoid prose. The sinister apocrypha of Meltdown is the one of the high point, my favorite. Highly recommended.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Alex

    I picked this up with the intention of getting more of a handle on neoreactionary thought (after reading the excellent #ACCELERATE also published by Urbanomic), and I would say that it delivered, if not in the manner I was expecting. Land walks the walk throughout these collected pieces; you can see an initial vector of philosophical thought accelerating throughout until it jumps the rails and lands in the Outside. I had read a few of these pieces previously and they definitely increase in intel I picked this up with the intention of getting more of a handle on neoreactionary thought (after reading the excellent #ACCELERATE also published by Urbanomic), and I would say that it delivered, if not in the manner I was expecting. Land walks the walk throughout these collected pieces; you can see an initial vector of philosophical thought accelerating throughout until it jumps the rails and lands in the Outside. I had read a few of these pieces previously and they definitely increase in intelligibility after the first pass; this is one that bears revisiting to get more out of it.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Alison Z.

    This was interesting, but a very difficult read. If you're familiar with Kant, Hegel, Deleuze, and others, it might help. I think the most interesting parts are when he writes about the concepts found in William Gibson's works like Neuromancer, and gets into the cyberpunk, singularity stuff. One of the things I didn't like was an overabundance of academic jargon which made it tedious to parse some of the sentences. But it's definitely worth reading. This was interesting, but a very difficult read. If you're familiar with Kant, Hegel, Deleuze, and others, it might help. I think the most interesting parts are when he writes about the concepts found in William Gibson's works like Neuromancer, and gets into the cyberpunk, singularity stuff. One of the things I didn't like was an overabundance of academic jargon which made it tedious to parse some of the sentences. But it's definitely worth reading.

  14. 4 out of 5

    Alice Nilsson

    Read it and weep

  15. 5 out of 5

    Volbet

    If Nietzsche was philosophizing with a hammer, Land is philosophizing with dynamite. He's a true cartoon villain of philosophy. But beneath the veneer there's a method to the madness. That is until Land just went plain mad. The span of this collection is 20 years, but the stylistic span is almost infinite. Going from an admittedly fatalistic, but interesting, academic philosopher on an amphetamine and MDMA binge to an outsider theorist, that has as little grasp of numbers as he has on Reality. T If Nietzsche was philosophizing with a hammer, Land is philosophizing with dynamite. He's a true cartoon villain of philosophy. But beneath the veneer there's a method to the madness. That is until Land just went plain mad. The span of this collection is 20 years, but the stylistic span is almost infinite. Going from an admittedly fatalistic, but interesting, academic philosopher on an amphetamine and MDMA binge to an outsider theorist, that has as little grasp of numbers as he has on Reality. The philosophy of Land draws mainly from Deleuze/Guattari, Nietzsche, Bataille and Cioran, and then those are filtered through an unhealthy mixture of Lovecraft, Crowley and Gibson. Making for some of the bleakest writing ever put to paper. Not only does Land consider Human destruction unavoidable. Land consider it necessary. With Land's unapologetic anti-humanism, anti-rationalism and anti-structualism it's no wonder Land became the father of accelerationism and the architect of the Dark Enlightenment. Whether you know it or not, Land is probably the most influential theorist in fringe politics and arguably the most important British philosopher in the last 30 years. But what is this collection actually about? Well, it's about pretty much everything. But mainly it's about post-humanity. The late-80's to the late-00's was an interesting time in cyberculture, and Land, and the CCRU in general, managed to plant themselves squarely in the middle of the techno-revolution. Land more than anybody, through a vigorous schizo-analysis of modernity, manages to exemplify the breaking point in the Human, Biological and Technological. Although, I can't decide if it's to this collection's detriment that it stops in 2007. With a stopping point like that, it avoids putting in Land's explicit political evolution. On one hand that means that Land's cybertheory takes centerstage, but it also means that reader that aren't in the know won't know where Land took his ideas. Although, from start to finish there are certainly hints at Land's political ideas, they're far from as concrete as Land would later make them.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Sebastian

    My suggestions for those particularly interested in Land's reading / development of Deleuze/Guattari's work (largely covered in the latter-half of this book): Start with his (surprisingly cogent) 2014 essay "Teleoplexy" and the essay—cowritten with Sadie Plant—titled "Cyberpositive" (both published in #Accelerate, but easily accessible online); follow those up with Amy Ireland's "The Poememenon: Form as Occult Technology"—a wonderful articulation of Land's theorization of the temporality and inv My suggestions for those particularly interested in Land's reading / development of Deleuze/Guattari's work (largely covered in the latter-half of this book): Start with his (surprisingly cogent) 2014 essay "Teleoplexy" and the essay—cowritten with Sadie Plant—titled "Cyberpositive" (both published in #Accelerate, but easily accessible online); follow those up with Amy Ireland's "The Poememenon: Form as Occult Technology"—a wonderful articulation of Land's theorization of the temporality and inverted-teleology of capitalization. From there, his world's your oyster—"Circuitries" is absolutely essential, as is "Machinic Desire"; "Cybergothic" is worthy of note as well; "Meltdown" is his mid-period manifesto and (in my opinion) the apotheosis of his writing's stylistic development; "Barker Speaks" is a wonderful example of his hyperstitional approach, and will be of special interest to those looking to engage with either Negarestani's Cyclonopedia or with Thomas Moynihan's recently published (and excellent) Spinal Catastrophism. Much could be (and has been) written on Land's work, and other reviewers (Maxwell in particular) have provided far more comprehensive overviews/critiques of this collection (and of his corpus as a whole). There's certainly much to be disagreed with, but the broader dismissal of Land's work (especially his "pre-breakdown" oeuvre) within academic circles represents, to my mind, a genuine loss. My only intent here, then, is to offer those interested in deepening their understanding of his Deleuzoguattarian-tinged accelerationism a "way-in".

  17. 5 out of 5

    Christopher

    For every really good essay (such as Shamanic Nietzsche) there are two more experimentations of faux-code and word salad. That being said, the really good essays make up for this on the whole. I still can't really see Land's political evolution as making all that much sense though. Important as he was in getting many of the balls I currently bounce rolling back in the day...all that seems to me is that the logical step is to want a plurality of economic systems-not one single hegemonic free trad For every really good essay (such as Shamanic Nietzsche) there are two more experimentations of faux-code and word salad. That being said, the really good essays make up for this on the whole. I still can't really see Land's political evolution as making all that much sense though. Important as he was in getting many of the balls I currently bounce rolling back in the day...all that seems to me is that the logical step is to want a plurality of economic systems-not one single hegemonic free trade world market which has become today the very monolith he fears from every other source in these essays.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Flash Man

    Nick Land is a fascinating character and philosopher. While I generally disagree with most of his philosophy and his conclusions, his style of writing and the deeply terrifying insights and portraits pictured by his amphetamine-fueled 1990s cybernetic eschatological mad black Deleuzian futurism. At a minimum, it makes great poetic or science fiction reading.

  19. 4 out of 5

    Liv

    I have serious ideological disagreements with Land, but I find him fascinating as a sort of philosopher-as-performance-artist. That said, you can get most of the experience of reading Land by watching Meltdown on YouTube.

  20. 5 out of 5

    Michael Gannon

    Capital has become self aware, and it doesnt care about anyone or anything

  21. 4 out of 5

    Raja Guttula

    Zoom zoom

  22. 4 out of 5

    Vijay Rana

    This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. Accelerated transcendal cocaine train trip on the sun, is what this book feels like.

  23. 4 out of 5

    Human Subhuman

    amazing, especially end sections. nick really is something else, very useful. highly recommend supplementing with hyperstition blog!!

  24. 5 out of 5

    Doris Raines

    NICE BOOK.

  25. 4 out of 5

    Alex Leon

    unfortunate

  26. 4 out of 5

    Felipe Avaron

    bottom shelf black magic deleuzianism

  27. 4 out of 5

    Jorge

    god i hate it here

  28. 5 out of 5

    cool dog

    No basis to understand the philosophy, only concern is the English, which is some of the most compelling, frenetic writing I've seen in years. No basis to understand the philosophy, only concern is the English, which is some of the most compelling, frenetic writing I've seen in years.

  29. 4 out of 5

    Vince

    bullshit

  30. 4 out of 5

    Aaron Schuschu

    Fascist appropriation of Deleuze and cyberpunk thinly veiled as Cthulhu and Blade Runner fanfics thinly veiled as computer programming code. Idk. Basically super far right trying to sound cool.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.