Table of Contents:
Introduction: Transhumanism’s Erotic Divide: Introduces transhumanism and contrasts Nick Land’s accelerationist vision (mechanical rupture) with David Temple’s CosmoErotic Humanism (erotic unity), highlighting shared goals and divergent paths.
1) Nick Land’s Homo Autocatalyticus: The Mechanical Rupture: Explains Land’s concept of humanity as self-catalyzing agents leading to technological catastrophe and human obsolescence through capitalism and biotech.
- Accelerationism’s Philosophical Roots: Traces accelerationism from 1970s French thinkers to Land’s radicalization, emphasizing capitalism as an inhuman force toward singularity.
- Land’s Autocatalytic Machine: Self-Producing Intelligence Beyond Human Control: Describes technocapital as a self-amplifying system radicalizing evolution into self-replacement, with AI as a parasitic replicator.
- Teleoplexy: The Time-Looping Logic of Artificial Destiny: Defines teleoplexy as retrocausal influence where future tech shapes the present, using examples like time-loops in capital and AI.
- Hyperstition: Fictions That Manufacture Their Own Reality: Explains hyperstition as self-fulfilling ideas that construct reality, accelerating post-human emergence.
- The Body Without Organs: Deterritorialized Capitalism as Cosmic Schizophrenia: Applies Deleuze/Guattari’s concept to capitalism as a boundary-dissolving machine, advocating acceleration over resistance.
- The Mechanical Rupture: Technocapital’s Inevitable Singularity: Argues for a discontinuous transition to AI superintelligence, making humans obsolete.
- The Inhuman Horizon: “Nothing Human Makes It Out”: Emphasizes Land’s anti-humanism and links to modern movements like e/acc and regulatory acts.
2) David Temple’s Homo Amor: The Erotic Unity: Presents Homo Amor as evolution through love and Eros, contrasting with Land’s rupture by focusing on conscious, relational fulfillment.
- CosmoErotic Humanism’s Framework: Outlines Eros as the cosmos’s drive for wholeness, with anthro-ontology and consciousness stages addressing crises.
- Evolving Perennialism and Transhumanist Ties: Connects to Neoplatonism, noosphere, and ethical AI, positioning tech as aiding spiritual evolution.
- Criticisms and Lineage: Critiques as vague New Age with eugenic risks, linking to Hubbard, Reiser, Fuller, and SRI reports.
3) Comparative Analysis: Shared Impulses, Divergent Paths: Compares the two visions’ transhumanist elements, convergences, and risks to autonomy.
- The Transhumanist Convergence: Notes shared rejection of human finality, tech embrace, and genuine rupture.
- The Erotic Continuum versus the Noospheric Absorption: Contrasts rupture with integration but argues both subordinate individuals to larger systems.
- The Question of Continuity and Agency: Discusses agency illusions and ethical implications in each framework.
- Inverting Metaphysics: Hyperstition and Anthro-Ontology: Shows both invert being to becoming, empowering but dooming humans.
- Mechanical vs. Erotic Transcendence: Differentiates models: escape vs. deepening, both risking autonomy.
- Manufactured Consent and Narrative Enforcement: Accuses CEH of coercing alignment through narrative and institutional means.
- Fabian Gradualism and Erotic Totalitarianism: Parallels CEH to Fabianism’s incremental control and “managed truth.”
- The Eugenic Substrate: Spiritual Fitness and Curated Evolution: Links both to eugenics: biological vs. spiritual selection.
- Two Paths, One Destination: The Elimination of Human Sovereignty: Argues convergence on erasing agency through different means.
Conclusion: The Erasure of Human Sovereignty in the Name of Evolution: Warns of subordination and violation of human dignity in both visions.
Conclusion: Between Mechanical Rupture and Erotic Transcendence: Reiterates negation of human being and calls to preserve sovereignty.
Resource List: Provides books, articles, and links for further reading on referenced concepts.
