This is a little follow-up to the previous post of mine.

The "unconditional" part of "unconditional accelerationism" gets criticized a lot. There have been countless arguments about what it really means and there is no consensus. And I don't believe there should be. It's quite vague and it's not necessarily a flaw.

An obvious signal that the u/ prefix gives us is the differentiation from l/acc and r/acc. And for me this is probably the most important thing. In my eyes, both left and right flavors of /acc are missing the point. Or maybe not missing it, but at least not hitting the same point I am after. As I described in the previous piece, I see accelerationism as a scientific discipline, as a surgery from within. Executed by cells of an organism. A strange field surgery of the collective meta-self.

To quote Nishiki (and to steal the usage of this quote from Xenobuddhism):

If accelerationism is true then it is also apolitical. It is a conceptual framework for understanding the nature of reality, not an ideology. Assuming the fundamentals are correct, ACC is no more political than chemistry, physics, etc.

And this is hitting the nail on the head for me. Having any, even conceptual, ties to left or right politics is a starting condition. For any field of nature sciences this is a nonsensical proposition. And in such areas as biology it might even indicate a dishonesty from the very start. For what is science if not an attempt at maximum objectivity. With no tangible goals except to expose more and more of the cogs. Dig into the cybernetics and transcribe your findings to the world.

To look from within into the belly of the emergent beast we're a part of there must not be an agenda, not even a vague one like having associations with the left or the right.

DVn2mOiVMAINOx8

From Xenobuddhism's post:

Oriented accelerationism is any attempt to cope with the catastrophic disorientation of acceleration.

This doesn’t mean that U/acc is just a willful embrace of disorientation, although the acephalic dimension of it are appealing. Rather, it is the cultivation of the non-oriented.

We, as humans, are most likely lacking in the mental capability department to be 100% successful in the mission of dissecting Capital. It is an uncharted territory in the ways that we have no means to even imagine. Disorienting, dizzying, maddening spirals of cause and effect leading to something that is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. But we're also incredible pattern-matching mechanisms that we have no yet grasped the power of.

To let go of the attempts to tie this new arcane discipline to something as cozy and familiar as political leanings is to limit ourselves from the get-go. We must come in with clear minds and absorb as many stimuli as we can to let our brains find the signal in the noise.

Many other arguments against the term "unconditional" exist, but I believe they are all more or less just pointless arguing over linguistics. Everyone will have their own interpretation anyway. And I see that as a good thing. An exploration of the outside of all things familiar. Experiments in detachment, abstraction and nihilism. All of those may come in handy if we someday reach a point of accelerationism being a more exact science than it is now.

d6614573a613e3fb20afb6962e1a1789