No.3888
of course it's true. take a look at science today. science has moved away from being 'natural philosophy' into a realm of non-reflexivity. it's excellent at producing weapons of war, but sucks at most other things.
No.3889
fredy was only half-right. Technology on its own does not create social production. the social body , the socius , is defined by the technology of its time. this was proven by d&g thought a la primitive, asiatic, moderno-capital. perlman was right in respect to this aspect. what perlman misses however is as the socius expands and contracts its tensions create new social relations and greases the techno-productive gears. large jumps in Technolyzation can force social relations further too, when they are lacking. it is a laxadayzical process, jolting, jilting etc. too the two are simultaneous but also concurrent. they can happen in big jumps.
Perlman missed as such then that Civilization thus produced Capital who became its own Being in its own right.
>fangs and nails
these are tools, and thus remain the same throughout, but evolving as so too we do.
No.3890
>>3889Perlman lacked vision and presight. the fore and the for. He fell into the pseudo-reactionary trap as much as he attempted to go further - there can be no RETVRN. there can only be forward momentum, through progress and through collapse. ultimately we are not in control of the process, but the sentient We of which no one is in awareness of. Perlman idealizes a truly idyllic life insofar as he maintained some belief that it could be returned to. His realization that it could not be so sent him insane, alone, and he secluded himself.
cyberspace has truly proven the worst fears of Perlman, Situationists, and all others who grasped at It but couldnt quite get it.
No.3891
>>>>3890
There is nothing more to do my friends. We will all enter oblivion together. I shall try and do so contented
No.3892
>>3878>>3879you cant not have a civilization