This is a superficial and facile reading of Land—his thinking delves far deeper than these surface readings suggest.
Firstly, I would recommend aquainting yourself with the philosophical history—actually thinking through the “hard” writings of Bataille and Deleuze & Guatarri, for example. The latter two are certainly ideomatic, but they are far from unreadable. It just takes mire effort than reading some articles to grasp their different amd differentiating mode of thinking. Without a firm grasp of D & G, the complexities of Land will seem like nonsense, which it certainly is not. It is just striking in its refusal of a fundamental humanism that we take for granted as a biological will to live, or what he referred to as “the human security system.”
Along with this, machinic-desire comes from D & G, and it does not suggest that machines or cars have their own will and desires. Until AI is sufficiently realized, such an idea remains idiotic. It is not what Land, or D & G for that matter, means to say at all.
Also, the quotation that you cite as not worth making sense of, as nonsense, in fact makes perfect sense if you understand the terminology. If you read Kant and Deleuze you would be able to see that what Land is writing about there is essential to understanding his base materialism and the concept of a materialist synthesis. This is not Land’s failing, but your own.
The internet is a valuable tool for disseminating thought, but it also renders fertile ground for the proliferation of silly misinterpretations passed off as valid. If you want to get into Land, or any writer, go to the source—be wary of secondary interpretations, especially those written by unknown aliases of cybernetic untracability. Who knows—they might just be a mask of AxSys...
This is a superficial and facile reading of Land—his thinking delves far deeper than these surface readings suggest.
Firstly, I would recommend aquainting yourself with the philosophical history—actually thinking through the “hard” writings of Bataille and Deleuze & Guatarri, for example. The latter two are certainly ideomatic, but they are far from unreadable. It just takes mire effort than reading some articles to grasp their different amd differentiating mode of thinking. Without a firm grasp of D & G, the complexities of Land will seem like nonsense, which it certainly is not. It is just striking in its refusal of a fundamental humanism that we take for granted as a biological will to live, or what he referred to as “the human security system.”
Along with this, machinic-desire comes from D & G, and it does not suggest that machines or cars have their own will and desires. Until AI is sufficiently realized, such an idea remains idiotic. It is not what Land, or D & G for that matter, means to say at all.
Also, the quotation that you cite as not worth making sense of, as nonsense, in fact makes perfect sense if you understand the terminology. If you read Kant and Deleuze you would be able to see that what Land is writing about there is essential to understanding his base materialism and the concept of a materialist synthesis. This is not Land’s failing, but your own.
The internet is a valuable tool for disseminating thought, but it also renders fertile ground for the proliferation of silly misinterpretations passed off as valid. If you want to get into Land, or any writer, go to the source—be wary of secondary interpretations, especially those written by unknown aliases of cybernetic untracability. Who knows—they might just be a mask of AxSys...