November 25, 2020

The new international of pseudocultures

Suddenly, between classes and seminars, hundreds of students marched between monastic-looking buildings, singing in Spanish, like Che Guevara’s grandchildren, the slogan The united people will never be defeated, so popular in this type of state of mind. Like their predecessors during the 1968 student movements, they protested driven by the naive conviction that they were part and visible representation of the people, understood as the supposedly supportive mass of all disadvantaged classes and groups.

The philosophical development at the beginning of the century of the OOO is equivalent to a philosophy of transhumanism


Unintentionally, it was not without its grace. Members of a future elite, admitted to Stanford for their high abilities, can hardly claim this identity claim … From a historical perspective, it is obvious that our students that fall joined a lousy Enlightenment tradition according to which intellectuals are in possession of a unique competence capable of recognizing with an infallible authority the true interests of the people, even if the expressions of their will indicate otherwise ”. Gumbrecht concludes: “Precisely in this sense, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, with his distinction between volonté de tous and volonté générale, wanted to emphasize that even a unanimous expression of the opinion of individual citizens had to be subjected to a philosophical reconstruction on the part of intellectuals to determine your objective interests. In this way, it has provided totalitarian states, from Robespierre to Kim Jong-un, potential and prestigious legitimacy ”. That is what explains why the international “posh” does not bother to show its own values, which it does not have, but always rides on the hump of the “People”, which it drives, in a messianic position, to save it , in a kind of gypsy curse in which the slave laments of those below always originate from those above, either by those who by their natural position exercise slavery, or by those who want to free them to exercise another alternative slavery.

Gumbrecht concludes: “But exactly what do these new pseudo-cultures exclude or misinterpret in their monochromatic knowledge of the world? … In their kindest version, they interpret that the voters of the popular classes, with their electoral behavior far from educated expectations, are worthy victims of a cynical manipulation ”. In a strange way, but obligatory reason for study, Gumbrecht covers how Silicon Valley is the Gordian knot around whose management and information technology orbit existing in the anthroposphere, the world and its economy are dominated.

After Trump was elected president of the United States, the Stanford University campus exploded


The philosopher Markus Gabriel, in peripatetic conversations in the south of the island of Gran Canaria, showed me great concern for the transhumanist force of Silicon Valley, which he considered mounted on a fallacy but factually very powerful, being that, even the thought of Martin Heidegger was studied by them to clarify the nature of technophobia and world techno-government. Gumbrecht does not speak of anything else in his book, in which German thought fits perfectly as an explanation of the technological phenomenon, and the will to power, of Silicon Valley. The ontological substance and its relationships are being dismantled and dehumanized, in favor of the Object Oriented Ontology, the OOO, developed by the neorealist Graham Harman since 1999, in his doctoral dissertation Tool-Being: Elements in a Theory of Objects, and dragging all the thinkers of speculative realism with him.

The philosophical development, at the beginning of the century, of the OOO, is equivalent to a philosophy of transhumanism, provided that we understand transhumanism as the overcoming of the human, taken its place by Artificial Intelligence, that is, the Intelligence of Objects. As a philosophical position, the OOO defends, anti-Kantianly, that objects exist independently of human perception, and starts on Heidegger’s postulates as a technophobe, because he saw it coming: there is no privilege of human existence over that of non-human objects. The French realist philosopher Quentin Meillassoux wants to define a correlative relationship between thought and being, but Harman does not even admit that correlation, being anthropomorphic. The objectification of the OOO comes to exhibitions such as Timothy Morton’s and hyper-objects, for example, “climate change” is a hyper-object that works by itself. Levi Bryant’s Onticology distinguishes four different types of objects: bright objects, such as smartphones, dim objects, such as neutrinos, dark objects, which do not produce local manifestations, and rebellious or unauthorized objects, which produce ontological entropy and they reject order, with a mutable dynamic. There has also been a gap between the philosophers of the OOO, Ian Bogost, a video game researcher at the Georgia Institute of Technology, creating an applied OOO, and which he includes under the title of “alien phenomenology”, with metaphorism as the main tool . In short, immaterialism (Harman, 2016) or pancomputationism are almost vicarious definitions of what lies behind the OOO, which is nothing but the empire of globalist and inhuman surveillance until any trace of humanism is escaped. The human being will be surpassed in speed and intelligence by the OOO and its ubiquitous substance, Artificial Intelligence, the evolutionary result of that fallen shell, nail or keloid, which is almost human intelligence. Welcome Silicon Valley! His coming will be immensely faster thanks to the New International of the Pseudocultures! The pseudo-cultures, those who will be remembered in a lost archive as those who dug the grave of humanism.


Source link