additionally if you're struggling, check out my 'complicity with anonymous materials' thread to see negarestani writing in a more concise fashion, or videos from the 'cyclonopedia symposia' to see how thinkers from a lot of diverse backgrounds have understood the book. both are linked in the op!
discipline posted:reza posted:
Even though that book seems to belong to another age, let me know if you have some major questions otherwise I'm sure you and your friends are more well-versed in that regard. As for the mortiloquist, the project has been slowed down significantly but it will be definitely completed in the near future. This is mainly due to the fact that I've been also working on other projects including essays and a monograph on modern universalism something that I've been working on for quite a while. I
way to jack my steez reza-chan
please correct me if i am wrong but i am understanding ( )hole complex as being sort of the sponge-like totality of like uhhh timespace i guess? and networks of flows and interrelations between things across time and space, where "void" constitutes the available channels of flow?
i feel kind of out of my league. i started 1000 plateaus cause i couldn't find anti-oedipus online, but im having similar problems conceptualizing their words too
also, read the glossary at the back, it's very helpful
as i understand it, ( )hole complex isn't necessarily an already-existing totality, or to be clearer anything inherent or universal exactly. i think it's a force, a presence, a process (of insurgency) manifested as an entity. the glossary defines it as a reinvention of the earth as "a machine to speed the return of the Old Ones" - the ( )hole complex transforms, or appropriates or interprets, the earth as a home for the realization of forces that are in a very lovecraftian way, unspeakable, ancient (following a sense of time that is to us unknowable), dark in a very literal sense.
so this complex, this process as entity, we can think of as a liquid, because of the fluidity. it exists underneath everything, it's subterranean, but it seeps, oozes, above surface, at zones of emergence. so you need to understand that there could be two zones, holes, in superficially completely different locations and appearances - say an economic crisis here and an insurgent attack somewhere else - but they would be completely interconnected, as simultaneous emergences above surface of a subterranean complex.
i agree with you that void constitutes the available channels of flow. negarestani stresses that we understand solidus not simply as wholeness but also the narrative expression of that which is not whole. the walls of a tunnel are equally as important as the space in between them.
my post on the other page was developing an extremely literal understanding of all this. solidus as earth, or building materials, zones of emergence as actual holes.
i hope this helps! if anyone wants to express their own understanding or clarify further, please do so
I'm reading anti-oedipus while I wait for cyclonopedia to get here.. is this a good decision?
i don't think it's a good thing to read while waiting. it's a pretty big investment on reading b/c of how much you will have to/want to re-read sections as more things fall into place. i may be a trash idiot but it took a bit of work for me get through it.
also does anyone know where a mobi copy of cyclonopedia might be? if it even exists ofc
did you guys hear about blinkandwheese
i heard about him. news travels fast in this little twon,. rip blinkandwhes.
i really enjoyed footnote 4 about inorganic demons, possibly because it was using examples from movies so my lil baby brain can handle it.