If this is really you, and you have the time and the interest, please hit me up at walker.goff.wg@gmail.com or warren.goff@duke.edu to schedule an interview. I am obsessed with your work (not just the early work), and I would love to pick your brain. I can compensate you for your time. I applied for a research grant on blockchain and I may get it, but even if not I can pay you for the interview. Just let me know. I'd love to talk. My research interests are primarily blockchain now, and philosophy / critical theory insofar as it provides different frameworks for discussing it and other AI-like systems. And no, I'm not gonna ask you any stupid questions about politics. I have a near-zero interest in politics. So I'm not gonna be like, "how can we use accelerationism to stop human suffering from this evil capitalist machine?" or other missed-the-entire-point questions. People who ask that haven't even read Marx (maybe they touched the Manifesto, but never Capital), let alone read your work closely enough. Anyway, if you're not interested, no worries. If you are, hit me up and we'll go over details (payment, discord vs telegram vs whatever, all of that). Cheers.
Some thoughts about your tweet: "Beyond the miasma of ideological obfuscation, the nature of sexual difference emerges predictably from the binary division of organisms into bearers of cheap and expensive gametes." https://twitter.com/Outsideness/status/1506479949754298372
It is interesting that sexual difference has three archetypical forms, arising from the fact that the male is, by default, disposable. Among the insects, the male remains disposable, a mere gamete machine; in the hive, the workers are female. Sometimes, the males are devoured after mating. Among the mammals, the male rises above disposability through dominance and competence. The males evolve to be bigger and stronger. Among the birds, the male rises above disposability by being impressive. Thus, the males evolve colorful plumage and even stately dancing ability.
It is most fascinating that humans are not automatically one of the mammals. Rather, human societies can adopt any of the three archetypes. In the collectivist longhouse societies, there evolve literal bugmen. Notably, such societies are ruled not by female individuals, but by the Kween. Among bourgeoisie societies, males protect and provide for their females, yet have a measure of ownership over them. Among aristocracies, females were not economically dependent on the males, and so the males dressed themselves in finery and learned to play and dance minuets. The gentleman-scientist of the Enlightenment and the Kabbalist Talmudic scholar belong in this category as well.
Which should archetype should humans aspire to? Theologians in the Early and Medieval Church believed that humans are animals by nature; yet, being bipedal like the birds, can become more like them by grace.
The unconscious function of language, as subsequently in the case of writing, is to cause the forgetting of what came epistemically and epistemologically before--perhaps. Before voiced language, similarly to certain other socialized higher animals, there was likely another kind of language based on a more directly and irrepressibly inter-cognitive connection, whose ambit of circularity was the small tribe forming a sort of rosary of interralated equally small complementary tribal units. Any interchange was limited to this very circumscribed tribal constellation of cousinship. It was a certain kind of Eden, in the sense that lying was either unthinkable or psychologically unsustainable for any significant length of time (measured in days). The development of the sort of voiced language with which we are presently familiar is coincident with the development of a sort of refractive ego, proceeding from the intrinsic ambiguity inevitably encoded in linguistic representation, from which latently emerges lying proper following an either delayed or precipitous process of forgetting/oblation of the capacity of activation the otherwise innately human capacity for direct inter-cognitive communication. It is the ultimately unconscious repression of this latter originary, what one might call Edenic, capacity for instinctual communicational transparency that makes lying sustainable and, indeed, a fundamental aspect of human society ever since. And it is before or in the face of this inter-cognitively repressive symbolic system that only religion, that esoteric murmur of Edenic transparency, stood as a ritualized thorn in the mind.
In this work of yours we can see several terminological references to Heidegger "concealment and ontological difference, among others" and even a certain recovery of the Messkirch philosopher in some capital reflections about Bitcoin and Time.
Will you someday offer us some careful reflection on your new intellectual relationship with Heidegger “which other texts of yours, e.g. Xenosystems, announce in an equally clear way” or will you leave Heidegger, buried in the Führer's Bunker, in the mist of the oblivion of Being again?
If this is really you, and you have the time and the interest, please hit me up at walker.goff.wg@gmail.com or warren.goff@duke.edu to schedule an interview. I am obsessed with your work (not just the early work), and I would love to pick your brain. I can compensate you for your time. I applied for a research grant on blockchain and I may get it, but even if not I can pay you for the interview. Just let me know. I'd love to talk. My research interests are primarily blockchain now, and philosophy / critical theory insofar as it provides different frameworks for discussing it and other AI-like systems. And no, I'm not gonna ask you any stupid questions about politics. I have a near-zero interest in politics. So I'm not gonna be like, "how can we use accelerationism to stop human suffering from this evil capitalist machine?" or other missed-the-entire-point questions. People who ask that haven't even read Marx (maybe they touched the Manifesto, but never Capital), let alone read your work closely enough. Anyway, if you're not interested, no worries. If you are, hit me up and we'll go over details (payment, discord vs telegram vs whatever, all of that). Cheers.
Some thoughts about your tweet: "Beyond the miasma of ideological obfuscation, the nature of sexual difference emerges predictably from the binary division of organisms into bearers of cheap and expensive gametes." https://twitter.com/Outsideness/status/1506479949754298372
It is interesting that sexual difference has three archetypical forms, arising from the fact that the male is, by default, disposable. Among the insects, the male remains disposable, a mere gamete machine; in the hive, the workers are female. Sometimes, the males are devoured after mating. Among the mammals, the male rises above disposability through dominance and competence. The males evolve to be bigger and stronger. Among the birds, the male rises above disposability by being impressive. Thus, the males evolve colorful plumage and even stately dancing ability.
It is most fascinating that humans are not automatically one of the mammals. Rather, human societies can adopt any of the three archetypes. In the collectivist longhouse societies, there evolve literal bugmen. Notably, such societies are ruled not by female individuals, but by the Kween. Among bourgeoisie societies, males protect and provide for their females, yet have a measure of ownership over them. Among aristocracies, females were not economically dependent on the males, and so the males dressed themselves in finery and learned to play and dance minuets. The gentleman-scientist of the Enlightenment and the Kabbalist Talmudic scholar belong in this category as well.
Which should archetype should humans aspire to? Theologians in the Early and Medieval Church believed that humans are animals by nature; yet, being bipedal like the birds, can become more like them by grace.
The unconscious function of language, as subsequently in the case of writing, is to cause the forgetting of what came epistemically and epistemologically before--perhaps. Before voiced language, similarly to certain other socialized higher animals, there was likely another kind of language based on a more directly and irrepressibly inter-cognitive connection, whose ambit of circularity was the small tribe forming a sort of rosary of interralated equally small complementary tribal units. Any interchange was limited to this very circumscribed tribal constellation of cousinship. It was a certain kind of Eden, in the sense that lying was either unthinkable or psychologically unsustainable for any significant length of time (measured in days). The development of the sort of voiced language with which we are presently familiar is coincident with the development of a sort of refractive ego, proceeding from the intrinsic ambiguity inevitably encoded in linguistic representation, from which latently emerges lying proper following an either delayed or precipitous process of forgetting/oblation of the capacity of activation the otherwise innately human capacity for direct inter-cognitive communication. It is the ultimately unconscious repression of this latter originary, what one might call Edenic, capacity for instinctual communicational transparency that makes lying sustainable and, indeed, a fundamental aspect of human society ever since. And it is before or in the face of this inter-cognitively repressive symbolic system that only religion, that esoteric murmur of Edenic transparency, stood as a ritualized thorn in the mind.
Hope you're still with us, Nick. Things have gotten closer to the sun: https://claraschelling.substack.com/p/aq-999
Don't forget to read the comments.
one word: FTX
Yo this shit so long fr who is this guy
In this work of yours we can see several terminological references to Heidegger "concealment and ontological difference, among others" and even a certain recovery of the Messkirch philosopher in some capital reflections about Bitcoin and Time.
Will you someday offer us some careful reflection on your new intellectual relationship with Heidegger “which other texts of yours, e.g. Xenosystems, announce in an equally clear way” or will you leave Heidegger, buried in the Führer's Bunker, in the mist of the oblivion of Being again?
The Dyson quote was not in the original post from 10/31/2018. Should we be on the lookout for other revisions?
A Satoshi for your thoughts on Monero or similarly occulted blockchains.