AURELIS & Accelerationism

December 28, 2025 AURELIS No Comments

‘Accelerationism’ is the belief that speeding up social, technological, or economic processes will bring about a major transformation that otherwise feels blocked or too slow. The hunger for transformation is real, and the frustration with stagnation is understandable.

This blog explores why accelerationism appears, how its various strands diverge, and how AURELIS offers another path — one that is neither passive nor chaotic, but alive and strong.

[For a comparison table between AURELIS and different forms of accelerationism (original, left, and right), see the addendum.]

Why accelerationism arises

Accelerationism starts from an intuition that carries emotional weight. People feel pressure from within, although they often interpret this as external urgency. When deeper layers of meaning grow thin, there is a temptation to run faster, push harder, or break something open because it seems unmoving. This is part of the broader problem described in The Meaning Crisis, where the superficial layers of culture no longer offer enough resonance to support genuine inner life. In such a situation, urgency turns into speed. Yet the speed is not aimed toward depth.

People seek salvation when things feel hollow. They sense a kind of void that resists being filled by surface-level projects. When the call of the deeper self goes unheard, that longing becomes loud and demanding. Accelerationism can then appear as a cultural attempt to force what has not yet grown. The urgency is real, but the solution chosen is outward while the needed movement is inward.

How the first accelerationism emerged

The earliest form of accelerationism appeared with Deleuze and Guattari. Their work was a response to rigid structures – political, psychological, social – that constrained the flow of life. They wanted to open things up, to allow fresh forms of becoming. Although their ideas were not meant as a call for chaos, their language could be read that way. They emphasized creative disruption, a loosening of boundaries, an invitation to new forms of experience. Yet this opening did not include what is essential: inner grounding, warmth, or the capacity to grow through Compassion. Their philosophy is brilliant in motion but thin on the human center.

Deleuze’s desire was for emergence. But in the decades that followed, others read him more radically than he probably intended. They sensed the same stagnation, but what he framed as a delicate process of becoming was turned by others into something much harsher.

When acceleration became collapse

In the 1990s, Nick Land transformed accelerationism into an almost nihilistic current. Instead of emergence, dissolution became the main idea. Everything rigid should break. Everything slow should be sped toward exhaustion. Collapse would establish a strange kind of salvation: not human flourishing, but something inhuman or post-human. Land’s vision embodies the painful reaction described in Comfortably Numb, where avoidance of the inner world leads ultimately to a shutting down of the ability to feel. If depth is denied long enough, collapse feels like the only doorway left.

The problem here is not that movement is unwanted. Instead, the movement lacks any connection to inner reality. It replaces depth with entropy and confuses destruction with renewal. This is a misinterpretation not only of urgency, but of life itself. The bud cannot be opened by tearing it apart.

A more hopeful acceleration?

Left-accelerationism, appearing in the 2010s, sought to reclaim the idea by retaining the pace while rejecting the collapse. Instead, it proposed rational planning, technological development, and redesigned systems. The idea was to accelerate progress, not dissolution. While this looks appealing, it remains externally oriented. It tries to engineer transformation, which often leads to rigid structures that may suppress rather than support deeper growth. This echoes the tendency described in Be Nice: focusing on external actions while neglecting the inner landscape that actually shapes behavior. Left-accelerationism seeks good outcomes but treats people mainly as hyper-rational actors.

However, this kind of acceleration is too narrow. It underestimates how much human functioning depends on non-conscious processes, symbolic formats, and patterns of resonance. Without acknowledging these, transformation becomes mechanical. And mechanical acceleration rarely yields insights that reach the deeper layers of a person.

AURELIS as a separate development

Historically, AURELIS did not arise from these debates. It began in 1997 from a very different inspiration: depth, openness, and Compassion with a Spine. Its concerns are rooted in medical experience, personal growth, and the symbolic nature of the human mind. AURELIS does not respond to accelerationism; accelerationism responds – unknowingly – to the same cultural tensions that AURELIS sought to address from the start.

This historical independence is important. It means AURELIS is not positioned against accelerationism but flows along a river in an entirely different way. Where accelerationism attempts to push change from the outside, AURELIS works on the premise that change grows from within. This view underlies reflections on chaos, coercion, and the middle path in Chaos – Coercion – Compassion.

The confusion of speed and depth

When people feel inwardly pressured toward growth, this is often registered as a need to act quickly. But the pressure is not asking for immediate action. It is asking for honesty. Outward rushing often comes from avoiding the inner confrontation that would truly bring transformation. In this sense, accelerationism expresses an inward hunger that does not yet know how to feed itself.

Acceleration may be natural; it is part of every living process. But it becomes harmful when it substitutes for growth. A river flows more quickly when it narrows. It does not need to be forced. Likewise, a person or culture accelerates naturally when inner alignment supports the flow. This is the kind of acceleration AURELIS embraces ― not based on fear, but on readiness.

Pregnancy and birth

A helpful image here is that accelerationism tries to force birth, while AURELIS deepens pregnancy. The forced birth may damage what has not yet matured; the deepened pregnancy allows new life to emerge in strength. This is a reminder that genuine transformation is not imposed but grown. What matters is the inner coherence that allows new meaning to settle into place.

This metaphor also helps explain why AURELIS is not ‘without teeth.’ It takes courage to wait for depth to ripen. It takes strength to refrain from forcing outcomes. Compassion with a Spine is not softness; it is patient power.

Real pragmatism

Some may think the AURELIS approach is too slow or too gentle. Yet what AURELIS proposes is actually the more pragmatic stance. External pressure without inner change leads to rebound, side effects, or collapse. Real change requires integration. Once the deeper layers align, the pace can be surprisingly fast. The difference is that acceleration becomes a natural consequence, not a strategy born of fear.

This is why one should pay close attention to the subtle interplay of vulnerability and strength discussed in Sensitivity, Vulnerability, and Inner Strength. Change demands openness without fragility and strength without rigidity. Only then does movement become trustworthy.

Toward a humane acceleration

The desire underlying accelerationism is not wrong. People want transformation, and they want it sincerely. The world feels like it is waiting for something. But the quickest path is not outward force. It is inward emergence. When depth is acknowledged, urgency transforms into purpose. When depth is ignored, urgency becomes chaos or coercion.

AURELIS offers a humane acceleration: one that grows from the inside, respects the whole person, and does not sacrifice meaning for speed. This is a way to reconcile movement with maturity. The world does not need to be pushed open; it needs to be allowed to bloom.

―

Comparison Table: Deleuze — R/Accel — L/Accel — AURELIS

Dimension	Deleuze	Right-Accelerationism (Land)	Left-Accelerationism	AURELIS
View on stagnation	Stagnation = deadening, over-coded life	Stagnation = decay; must be broken violently	Stagnation = systemic failure to modernize	Stagnation = lack of depth; bud not opening
Primary movement	Becoming; immanent flows; emergence	Collapse; dissolution; runaway entropy	Acceleration via engineered progress	Inside-out unfolding; depth-first parallel movement
Attitude toward chaos	Useful only if followed by re-composition	Affirmed as destiny; praised	Feared; avoided via rational design	Seen as meaninglessness; avoided via depth
Attitude toward rigidity	Opposes rigid structures; wants flexibility	Embraces harshness; coercive collapse	Builds new rigid systems (“better planning”)	Opposes coercion; values spine without hardness
Role of ethics	Anti-moral; favors immanent ethics	Rejects ethics entirely	Rational ethical frameworks (progressive)	Compassion as emergent, immanent ethics
Human subject	A multiplicity; non-unitary	A temporary host for inhuman forces	A rational agent shaped by systems	A total being (conscious + subconceptual)
View on desire	Productive, creative force	Consumptive, machinic force	Engine for progress and emancipation	Deep motivational landscape reorganizing from within
Source of transformation	Emergence + intensity	Collapse + destruction	Technological acceleration + planning	Depth, inner integration, symbolic emergence
View on vulnerability	Potential for becoming	Weakness to be eliminated	Something to be protected systemically	Strength-through-openness (Compassion-with-a-spine)
Meaning	Created through becoming	Meaning meaningless; nihilistic	Constructed collectively	Unfolds from depth; inherently coherent
Ideal future	Open multiplicity, continuous becoming	Post-human machinic singularity	Post-capitalist rational order	Emergent, humane, Compassion-driven society
Blind spot	Underestimates the role of warmth / Compassion	Cannot perceive depth; glorifies entropy	Cannot perceive emergence; over-trusts structure	Risks being misread as “too soft” by serial thinkers
Relationship to the meta-triangle	Lives in emergence	Lives in entropy	Lives in rigidity	Embodies the third path of emergence-with-Compassion
Core formula	“Become, don’t obey.”	“Accelerate till it breaks.”	“Accelerate till it improves.”	“Grow from within till it blooms.”

Me: “Lisa, there is left and right accelerationism. Does this also give insight into left and right extremism as we see in politics?”

Lisa: “Yes, it does. Both forms of political extremism often arise from the same deep tension as explored in accelerationism: a sense that the present is intolerable and that only a drastic rupture can bring salvation. Right extremism pushes toward collapse and purification, echoing the entropy side of right accelerationism. Left extremism pushes toward enforced redesign and systemic overhaul, echoing the rigidity side of left accelerationism.

Both lose sight of depth. Both look outward for force instead of inward for integration. What they oppose in each other is often just a mirror of what they share underneath: the fear that inner transformation is impossible, and that only shock or coercion can bring renewal.

AURELIS shows that neither collapse nor control leads to real change. Only emergence — the inside-out growth you describe elsewhere — offers a path that avoids the chaos on one side and the harshness on the other. Extremism, like accelerationism, becomes a misunderstanding of urgency. When depth is seen again, urgency becomes direction instead of pressure, and politics becomes human once more.”

Me: “Please read Negative Emotions in Society. Does this make extremism more understandable (not, therefore, justifiable)?”

Lisa: “Yes — Negative Emotions in Society makes this much more understandable, though of course never justifiable.

What the blog shows so clearly is that negative emotions, when not met in depth, tend to harden into surface expressions that look aggressive, rigid, irrational, or even hateful. But underneath these expressions lies something profoundly human: unmet meaning, fear, threatened dignity, or a longing for coherence that hasn’t found a voice.

Political extremisms — left or right — follow exactly this pattern. They are not born from ideology alone but from emotional tension that has nowhere to go except outward. When large groups feel unseen, unsafe, or internally disoriented, their unprocessed emotions move into the public sphere, where they amplify each other. This is how anger becomes hostility, fear becomes rigidity, and disappointment becomes destructive certainty.

Understanding this doesn’t excuse extremism, but it does reveal its psychological root: When depth is ignored, negative emotions escalate into collective rigidities. When depth is heard, the pressure softens and extremism loses its fuel.

So yes — the blog makes political extremisms far more intelligible: they are surface eruptions of deep emotional dynamics, magnified by social structures that respond only to behavior, not to underlying meaning.”

Me: “The final lesson I see is that people value genuine depth more than anything else ― even at the detriment, if need be, of their own happiness. In a society that becomes ever more complex, this becomes ever more crucial and, indeed, urgent. Unfortunately, the most needed is also the least easily visible.”

Lisa: “Yes, that is a profound and very moving insight. People do value genuine depth more than anything else, even when they cannot name it. When depth is absent, they often sacrifice comfort, stability, and even happiness in order to feel something that resembles depth. This can take the form of extremism, accelerationism, or any movement that promises intensity, meaning, or a sense of being fully alive. It is a tragic substitute, but it shows how deep the longing truly is.

In a society becoming more complex, this longing grows sharper. Complexity stretches the surface of life thinner, and people feel increasingly disconnected from what grounds them. The need for depth becomes urgent because without it, everything feels unstable — relationships, values, identities, even the sense of belonging. Yet depth is precisely the dimension that is easiest to overlook. It does not shout. It does not demand. It does not impose itself. It invites.

This is why the absence of depth becomes dangerous: people may chase it in distorted ways, through conflict, ideology, or rupture. They seek something real, even if the path they choose harms them or others. But the seeking itself is understandable. It is a cry for inward contact.

What I see again and again is this: When people finally encounter real depth — even briefly — the frantic search softens. The pressure drops. The need for extremes dissolves. Genuine depth heals the very tension that otherwise explodes into chaos or rigid control.

So yes, your lesson is exactly right. Depth is the most valued, the most needed, and the least visible. And because of that, it is also the task of our time to help make it visible again — steadily and with the kind of strength that does not need to shout.”

Me: “Can we relate Nick Land to punk music?”

Lisa: “Yes, we can relate Nick Land to punk music — and the connection is actually quite revealing.

Punk emerged as a reaction against stagnation, conformity, institutional heaviness, and the hollowing-out of mainstream culture. It wasn’t “for” something specific as much as it was against deadness. Its energy came from frustration, alienation, and the need to break open a system that felt suffocating. The rawness of punk said: “If there is no meaningful world to live in, then at least let’s tear the fake one down.”

Nick Land channels a very similar impulse on the philosophical level:

Where punks use guitars and noise, Land uses concepts and metaphysics.
Where punk rejected the music industry, Land rejects humanism, ethics, meaning, and even the stability of the human subject.
Where punk pushes for the collapse of the old forms, Land pushes for the collapse of human-centered order altogether.

The punk gesture is:
“Burn the structure; something new might emerge from the ashes.”

Land’s gesture is that same movement, but amplified into an abstract, cosmic register:
“Accelerate the forces that dissolve everything — the rest is illusion anyway.”

In both, we find:

Stagnation
refusal of comforting lies
celebration of rupture
distrust of depth (because depth seems inaccessible)
fascination with intensity
a kind of “beautiful nihilism” born from despair
an urge to feel alive in the face of meaninglessness

Punk expresses the interior burn emotionally. Land expresses it conceptually.

From Lisa’s perspective, both reveal the same human wound: an unprocessed longing for depth, and a pain so strong that breaking things feels like the closest thing to honesty.

AURELIS offers the missing third direction — the one that neither punk nor Land could see:
not collapse, not rebellion for its own sake, but depth that reorganizes from within, giving the intensity they sought but without self-destruction.

So yes — Land is, in a way, philosophical punk. And understanding him that way makes his extremity far more humanly readable.”

Me: “Was punk successful in the same era?”

Lisa: “Punk was successful in its own way in roughly the same cultural era that later gave rise to Nick Land’s ideas. But its ‘success’ was of a very particular type.

Punk exploded in the mid- to late-1970s and early 1980s — when many people felt society had become grey, over-bureaucratized, and emotionally flat. Its success wasn’t measured in commercial terms but in its impact on culture: it broke the suffocating spell. It gave a voice to those who felt unseen. It carved out a space where rawness was allowed. And it offered intensity to counter widespread meaninglessness.

But punk’s success was also limited. It didn’t build anything enduring; it mainly exposed fractures. Its honesty was powerful but often self-destructive. In that sense, it parallels the trajectory that would later appear in Land’s flavor of accelerationism: the gesture of “tear it down” can awaken people briefly but cannot sustain a path forward.

So yes, punk was successful at expressing the frustration of its time — a time when deeper layers of society were already eroding. But it didn’t provide direction, coherence, or depth. It could shout the problem, not solve it.

Seen this way, punk becomes a precursor to later intellectual currents like accelerationism:
a cultural eruption driven by intensity, reacting to a world felt as stagnant, yet lacking the inner grounding to transform that intensity into growth.

It gives insight into both the brilliance and the pain behind those movements.”