Moving Away From The Dark Enlightenment?
As I begin writing my third book (I never finished the second one which I started with Jojo), I do have to reassess my beliefs.
Neoreaction obviously gets strawmanned to an insane degree… but moving beyond it? That Land and Moldbug outline a someone transcendental political system is to be recognized but the direction of which I am heading may be different. Ultimately, in response to Nietzschean movements such as unknowing or multiplicity, transcendentality precedes both. Abtin informed me of our friend Hayley’s critique of my old philosophy of the nothing being essentialist because of its focus on origins. I could care less… “essentialist.” Critique the deductions (head start: the value theory I outlined was garbage)! Ultimately, what was the origin? NOTHING! Any accusation of anything can easily be chalked up to a category error.
Either way, what if it were something instead of nothing? Obviously, transcendental realism is built to resist such “damage.” Multiplicity is only good in terms of competition, which is to say, multiple things competing is “good.” The notion of plural truth obviously has its own issues — but, transcendental arbitration cuts all of this short. The Deleuzo-Guattarian (it was said by a person who self-identifies as one) critique recently raised at NRx and transcendental realism was quite laughable actually. Not only did they misunderstand what exit is (it is means-end reversal thus meaning exit and the Outside are inextricably the same), but they misunderstand what capitalism is… I even wrote a 3 part summary to the notion. But, I digress. The critique leveled at transcendental realism wasn’t anything other than mocking. That transcendental arbiters are the “real deal” when it comes to arbitration is certain because that is their very nature. The Deleuzo-Guattarian movement has always puzzled me though. Hayley et al. have told me that the whole foundation and point of the philosophy is to be without foundation and without point. Fair enough then. But what I don’t get is why they talk to those that do! Ultimately, we realize that it is all about alternatives… The only thing without an alternative? Transcendental arbiters! Because the whole point is that it has no possible alternatives, for if it did, then it wouldn’t be transcendental. Not even nothing can surpass transcendental arbiters, and not even nothing can be an alternative to its judgement, for if there was an alternative that could transcend the transcendental arbiter then it wouldn’t be a transcendental arbiter.
Ultimately the question is this: do we look for transcendental political and economic systems or those systems which transcendental arbiters arbitration? Is there even a difference?