/lit/ - Literature

A (1) voluntarist Gnostic God can't exist, or else it would have negated the kenoma by now. The whole point of positing an all-powerful Alien is that they're not going to be putzing around with rulesets and transcendental conditions to begin with. Gnosticism doesn't admit the "God works in mysterious ways" argument.

So, we're committed to either a (2) martial Zoroastrian dualism where the good God is powerful but not all-powerful (cannot violate necessary truths; logical AND synthetic) and so cannot destroy the Devil who is an uncreated being, or a (3) passive Manichaean dualism where the light is powerless to resist being consumed by darkness.

In the other direction:

We cannot disprove the existence (1) of a voluntarist demon if the will of this demon is to deceive, since this demon would render even apodictic knowledge (like the cogito) contingent.

Since we cannot disprove a voluntarist demon, we have to commit to a (2) Zoroastrian dualism where the Devil is powerful, but not all-powerful, like the good God. The counterpart to the Manichaean option is (3) privation theory, where evil is a passive absence with no will of its own, which doesn't follow from our experience of the world.

How fucking fucked are we?

For various reasons, I need to be an expert in quantum mechanics by halfway through the year. I only know rudimentary physics and some concepts of calculus. What do I need to read?

>Open book
>it all kind of looks like a jumble of assorted words
>put it back

NICOLE IS DEAD: the chapters' names must be cut off from their initials, the precise reversal of cutting off the necromorphs' limbs, Žižek is wrong about everything: Isaac does not realize that /there is no Nicole/ by penetrating the Ishimura, rather, the chapters' names are always already inscribed in the ship's tram system, the fact that, technically, the tram rides are /inert loading screens/ whereby the Ishimura shifts around Isaac, fabricating the illusion of motion, is analogous, or /necrologous/, to the necromorphous process of cadaveric animation, does Kendra not ultimately /pierce Isaac's head/ with a tele-vision, not unlike the one necro-iteration repeatedly seen animating cadavers by piercing their /heads/, the very locus of the chapters' initials spelling out Isaac's fate? THE PRIMAL SCENE IS SECONDARY, the /Marker/ is the nullifying obscene: something reverse engineered from a /Divine original/ and buried in /space/, Freud is wrong about everything: the Father is a /hermaphrodite/, the phallic helix circumscribes, or /necroscribes/, the Ishimura itself as a /false yoni/, the negative space of the Marker resembles a twisted plane whose ends /could/ be joined into a Möbius strip, this is precisely the structure the of game, Isaac cuts off Oedipus' /limb/: Lacan is wrong about everything: the /whole/ Oedipal structure is /reverse engineered/ from an ideological NICOLE IS NOT DEAD, the /tragedy/ is as an undue animation of the maternal cadaver, the /necromorphous limb/ of the Father. CUT OFF THEIR LIMBS: the vacuum of space is not unlike the NOT /sucking Isaac into a total inertia/ inside the Ishimura, into the obscenity of Nicole's /necromorphous phantom/, nullifying any primal scene, the idea being rightly mocked by the game itself in the tragicomical Hammond-Kendra relation, amputated limbs "engendering" the NOT SPEAKING SUBJECT of Isaac, a /necromorph/! THE HIVE MIND IS NOT NICOLE, rather /the final obscene apparition of Nicole is the true face of the Hive Mind/, the pitiful fight being as a /body/ cut from the /limb/ of the true /boss/ who ends the game. Deleuze is wrong about everything: the chapters' initials necromorphing the game's body are the LIMBS CUTTING BOTH BODIES AND ORGANS APART: the Marker is the /sovereign sign itself/, the opening between the original and the copy is identical to the space necroscribed in and of either of their helices, A LITERAL DEAD SPACE, the copy being buried in total opacity is as a /necromorphing/ of the original decomposing itself into total transparency. Baudrillard is right about everything: the actual necromorphs are not instantiations necessary to realize the death of Nicole, but Disneyland-like bodies, /cadavers/, meant to cloak the necromorphous body of the game itself, MAKING US WHOLE.

I am seduced by my life force, which is to say I am seduced by health: health is the condition of sin, or more to the point, sin is the radical distention of 'ownmost' possibility which coincides with health: there are those who don't forfeit their essential Selves to they-self, but to the my-self: the horror is not being Gyugyu (the sinless yonic Wound), but a failed Tomóceusz (a failed inseminator of space): there are those who defile themselves because they can't defile the field of their potential selves we call the World, god have mercy on their souls: for them, death does not permanently interrupt their psychophilia, it will merely hold it in abeyance: an “enlightenment without radiance”, the toilet bowl-clutcher promising he will never drink again, until he does, because he will, the eternal creature of the hour: your noumenon, like THE noumenon, is tolerant of any material, even dying: the “unfallen” soul/the bird that watches is indomitable in its obscenity: at least when it is fused with the bird that gorges, and the Self becomes the antinomian sword: “in all eternity you will never conquer yourself, John DiFool”: it's why the vulgar Plotinian argument against the Gnostics (and the Buddhists by extension) is so weak: the undeveloped suicide bursts against his death mind like a melon and falls again as the bodily powers are re-activated in reverse order, i.e. as the planetary necklace of dependent origination is re-constituted: who knows them? Not the buddhas of panoramic space-consciousness: but be blessed by your closure, your non-relational kernel: the impossibility of real human connection is how you know you are saved, but it's also how you know you are in hell: Satan is a frotteur, and a cosmic bananafish shedding quantum tunnelers like scales: to a point, we reject Laruelle's matrioshka gnosticism, because unlike the Buddhists he does not understand what the latter meant by all world-systems being samsaric: all world-systems are just shuffled algorithmic libraries: dewey decimal ontologies: the One does not give us Evil nor does it legitimate it, against the m*nists we must repeat: the One is the negative condition of Evil: it is first necessary that Evil be given in order for the One to then give Evil according to the former's mode of being 'given-without-givenness': in the end, it really does come down to wine aunt cliches and the kinds of platitudes you'd hang up on your dorm room wall: love the world like you were never born in it.

Imagine modernity as a kind of transcendental mitosis: one body becoming two: the gladiators of positivism and romanticism raging in the bridge: subjects bound to the World in the mode of its unbinding, or exorcised completely: the quintessential gnostic procedure: for Holderlin, art is this mitosis in reverse: the return or at least flirtation with the divine sleep of matter: poesy is the enemy of pneuma, the totalizing organ: but the scholarship doesn't emphasize this enough: Gnosticism is a rejection of both Judaism /and/ paganism, of both ultra-transcendence and preflexive immanence: the gnostic is properly irreflexive, in defiance of the Sophianic auto-affection = auto-eroticism, which masturbates the sun into being: is not Henry's self-enjoying Life which “cannot cease to adhere to itself” nothing but Schelling's God which is “never free to be unfree”? Is not the eye with which god sees God not the eye with which God sees the dead?

Imagine modernity as a kind of transcendental
- or topological - mitosis: one body becoming two: the gladiators of positivism and romanticism raging in the bridge: subjects bound to the World in the mode of its unbinding, or exorcised completely: the quintessential gnostic procedure: for Holderlin, art is this mitosis in reverse: the return or at least flirtation with the divine sleep of matter: poesy is the enemy of pneuma, the totalizing organ: but the scholarship doesn't emphasize this enough: Gnosticism is a rejection of both Judaism /and/ paganism, of both ultra-transcendence and preflexive immanence: the gnostic is properly irreflexive, in defiance of the Sophianic auto-affection = auto-eroticism, which masturbated the stars into being: is not Henry's self-enjoying Life which “cannot cease to adhere to itself” nothing but Schelling's God which is “never free to be unfree”? Is not the eye with which god sees God not the eye with which God sees the dead?

THE LIVING ARE THE PORNOGRAPHY OF THE DEAD: the World is not a “botched imitation” or spotted mirror but – taking our cue from Henry here, pornography being an exteriorization and so a profanation of the sexual act in its pure affectivity, the reduction of Life to the copulation of surfaces – a pornography of (salvific) absence: it's the Manichaeans who got a leg up on the Sethians, because they understand the dark powers can only masturbate to – never rape, “access” - the eidos of the Pleromatic feminine: that demonism is a frotteurism: and that the only way to be released from the world-system is to be ejaculated from it, like the “flight of an Angel”, or the sayings of Christ: it is not we who must ingest Evil, and so sickened, expel it (the Sadean-antinomian “heresy”): it is we who we have been ingested by Evil and must sicken the World: we must become poison in the Body-of-bodies, an ipecac star: like Baudrillard knows, we don't return the gift to the store but to the giver, tenfold: we here oppose Zizek's subjectivity as ek-static phallus to Henry's Life as the revelation of self-revelation: a void under perpetual threat of implosion vs. the stellar core of solitude: demons are "four-dimensional", in that their phalli engorge into the w-axis of intentionality, Aeons are holy “anime”: Laruelle: Christ inverts Schroedinger's Paradox: not a being both alive and dead, not one thing in two states, but one state (vector) in two things: (non-)death both Life and living:

THE LIVING ARE THE PORNOGRAPHY OF THE DEAD: the World is not a “botched imitation” or spotted mirror but – taking our cue from Henry here, pornography being an exteriorization and so a profanation of the sexual act in its pure affectivity, the reduction of Life to the copulation of surfaces – a pornography of (salvific) absence: it's the Manichaeans who have a leg up on the Sethians, because they understand the dark powers can only masturbate to – never rape, “access” - the eidos of the Pleromatic feminine: that demonism is a frotteurism: and that the only way to be released from the world-system is to be ejaculated from it, like the “flight of an Angel”: it is not we who must ingest Evil, and so sickened, expel it (the Sadean-antinomian “heresy”): it is we who we have been ingested by Evil and must sicken the World: we must become poison in the Body-of-bodies, an ipecac star: like Baudrillard knows, we don't return the gift to the store but to the giver, tenfold: we here oppose Zizek's subjectivity as ek-static phallus to Henry's Life as the revelation of self-revelation: a void under perpetual threat of implosion vs. the stellar core of solitude: demons are "four-dimensional", in that their phalli engorge into the w-axis of intentionality, Aeons are holy “anime”: Laruelle: Christ inverts Schroedinger's Paradox: not a being both alive and dead, not one thing in two states, but one state (vector) in two things: (non-)death both Life and living:

KANT WAS ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION: forget experience: what is the transcendental condition of possibility for suffering? How do we reverse-engineer the archontic manual? We begin with a World: a phenomenality - “horizon of light” - responsible for the distinction between seeing and what is seen: manifestation is not the purchase but precisely the deprivation of a thing's truth: the flattening of goldfish to goldfish crackers, chickens to tendies: (you /can/ go blind from too much masturbation, vision is a leakage, your lens elongate to take in what you cannot have, keratoconus): Zizek has it wrong: as he puts it: it's not that “everything is about sex”, but rather, “sex is about everything”: not even that: sexuality is just another thing in everything: sexuality is debased because it is abased: delimited, decrepit, non-enough: even it is just another phenomenon tessellated into Time as Image, or: Time as the satanic Trivial: that which is the most visible and so the most foul: a world's law being the law of the “appearance of things”: but how do we make sense of this with respect to animals? What determines the “prior-to-priority” of man, that we must be given on our side to ask this question? The animal is the matrixial victim, the most ekstatic Life condemned to the hell of the visible, doomed to be only seen and never seeing: Genesis 9:3: it is because human beings monopolize the perspectival order that they are creations of evil: it is because the human image plane reduces Life to an edible surface, transparent film, that they are made in the image of Yaldabaoth: which is why the boomer devil is the All-Seeing Eye: the omni-opticon which reduces the World to its own goldfish cracker: the God of Being vs. the God of Life: but reality is born in the heart of Life, not in the World, because the World in its “outside-ness” is always-already the abortion of every possible reality: Christ is the horizonless revelation, in-communicable, whose Passion modelizes the agony that ended a transcendental kalpa: O my Life, you have never hurt me, it's I who have mistreated you: it was not the Father who abandoned Christ on the Cross, IT WAS CHRIST WHO ABANDONED THE FATHER:

KANT WAS ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION: forget experience: what is the transcendental condition of possibility for suffering? How do we reverse-engineer the archontic manual? We begin with a World: a phenomenality - “horizon of light” - responsible for the distinction between seeing and what is seen: manifestation is not the purchase but precisely the deprivation of a thing's truth: the flattening of goldfish to goldfish crackers, chickens to tendies: (you /can/ go blind from too much masturbation, vision is a leakage, your lens elongate to take in what you cannot have, keratoconus): Zizek has it wrong: as he puts it: it's not that “everything is about sex”, but rather, “sex is about everything”: not even that: sexuality is just another thing in everything: sexuality is debased because it is abased: delimited, decrepit, non-enough: even it is just another phenomenon tessellated into Time as Image, or: Time as the satanic Trivial: that which is the most visible and so the most foul: the world's law being the law of the “appearance of things”: but how do we make sense of this with respect to animals? What determines the “prior-to-priority” of man, that we must be given our side to ask this question? The animal is the matrixial victim, the most ekstatic Life condemned to the hell of the visible, doomed to be seen and never seeing: Genesis 9:3: it is because human beings monopolize the perspectival order that they are creations of evil: it is because the human image plane reduces Life to an edible surface, transparent film, that they are made in the image of Yaldabaoth: which is why the boomer devil is the All-Seeing Eye: the omni-opticon which reduces the World to its own goldfish cracker: the God of Being vs. the God of Life: but reality is born in the heart of Life, not in the World, because the World in its “outside-ness” is always-already the abortion of every possible reality: Christ is the horizonless revelation, in-communicable, whose Passion modelizes the agony that ended a transcendental kalpa: O my Life, you have never hurt me, it's I who have mistreated you: it was not the Father who abandoned Christ on the Cross, IT WAS CHRIST WHO ABANDONED THE FATHER:

Previously. . .

LOVE LIKE THE FATHER TO HATE LIKE THE SON: there's no such thing as antinomian dualism because a real dualist would never repress his hatred of Evil: so-called antinomian “gnostics” can only recoil off the same veil the non-dualist does: the tetralemmic darkness that impersonates the non-ontological to reinforce the ontological: because even in raping and killing with no-mind, I do not accrue evil: as implied by the coincidence of Zen and militarism, x-Buddhism and capital: “I do not act through the sword, the sword acts through me”: because even in “going with the flow” I am piloted by Time: don't I embody the chora then, the infinite evil of space, though I've vanquished the petty evil of egoism? If good and evil are colorless, don't I bury the Victim in that “utter void” of which nothing can be said, no eulogy ever spoken? So how do we staunch our tears for the Murder(ed), and overcome even the nihilism of the post-intentional? By going All The Way, beyond every gen(i)us of amor fati: this is our task, and our Golgotha: to become “Stoics” without a Logos: having nothing to do with Nietzsche because it has nothing to do with ressentiment; we begin only by negating him: swapping out his dancing God/incel Devil for Nimrod's arctic Light/tropical Darkness: the mocking Aeon of Judas and an all-too-humid Jesus: the Light that laughs and a Night that weeps, wishing for Peace in the name of all things: but a Gnostic wishes for War, because he knows the final trap is a victimology, and the nemocentric blade: because he knows nothing scandalizes the mother of Darkness quite like becoming a “son of Cold Fire”, pushing through the grief of (particular) death to deliver all beings to (universal) non-death: a desert God sheds no tears: He who cleaves Life from the World with one terrible stroke:

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE “GOOD” TO BE SAVED: you are a poverty so radical it is not even mixed with the desire for poverty, because even the lust for awakening is a skin graft: thought is not a parasite, but a surgeon: and my spirit is a color, not a temperature: an identity, not a mode: we may be shut centers but we still let in a skeuomorphic light: that is, compassion has nothing to do with society or evolution, it is topological, rooted in the seat I have taken in space, a pronomian emptiness: the all eye I am for every eye, the self-savior who is the self-hangman: Jesus was hated by the World, now let's think the next turn of the Christ-Screw: the Christ whose Nazareth is his own flesh, whose gaze is the “Adversary's Gaze” and whose power is doused not by the vision of those who knew him as a child but by his own vision, /the/ Child: the Anonymous One who is of one body with the Pharisees who crucify him: who is not just hated by the World but hated by himself with the force of a World: and who for precisely that reason can never be a Christ: the Stranger quantum entangled with all strangers, the distilled Victim: an animal soul who sleeps under burned bridges when it rains: whose life is a colon, a passage from death to Death: from his own manifest possibility, siamese shadow, to a God sweating blood in the garden of his soul:

LOVE LIKE THE FATHER TO HATE LIKE THE SON: there's no such thing as antinomian dualism because a real dualist would never extinguish his hatred of Evil: so-called antinomian “gnostics” can only recoil off the same veil the non-dualist does: the tetralemmic darkness that impersonates the non-ontological to reinforce the ontological: because even in raping and killing with no-mind, I do not accrue evil: as implied by the coincidence of Zen and militarism, x-Buddhism and capital: “I do not act through the sword, the sword acts through me”: because even in “going with the flow” I am piloted by Time: don't I embody the chora then, the infinite evil of space, though I've vanquished the petty evil of egoism? If good and evil are colorless, don't I bury the Victim in that “utter void” of which nothing can be said, no eulogy ever spoken? So how do we staunch our tears for the Murder(ed), and overcome even the nihilism of the post-intentional? By going All The Way, beyond every gen(i)us of amor fati: this is our task, and our Golgotha: to become “Stoics” without a Logos: having nothing to do with Nietzsche because it has nothing to do with ressentiment; we begin only by negating him: swapping out his dancing God/incel Devil for Nimrod's arctic Light/tropical Darkness: the mocking Aeon of Judas and an all-too-humid Jesus: the Light that laughs and a Night that weeps, wishing for Peace in the name of all things: but a Gnostic wishes for War, because he knows the final trap is a victimology, and the nemocentric blade: a desert God sheds no tears: because he knows nothing scandalizes the mother of Darkness quite like becoming a “son of Cold Fire”, pushing through the grief of (particular) death to deliver all beings to (universal) non-death: who cleaves Life from the World with one terrible stroke:

LOVE LIKE THE FATHER TO HATE LIKE THE SON: there's no such thing as antinomian dualism because a real dualist would never strive to extinguish his hatred of Evil and transgression: so-called antinomian “gnostics” can only recoil off the same veil the non-dualist does: the tetralemmic darkness that impersonates the non-ontological to reinforce the ontological: because even in raping and killing with no-mind, I do not accrue evil: as implied by the coincidence of Zen and militarism, x-Buddhism and capital: “I do not act through the sword, the sword acts through me”: because even in “going with the flow” I am piloted by Time: don't I embody the chora then, the infinite evil of space, though I've vanquished the petty evil of egoism? If good and evil are colorless, don't I bury the Victim in that “utter void” of which nothing can be said, no eulogy ever spoken? So how do we staunch our tears for the Murder(ed), and overcome even the nihilism of the post-intentional? By going All The Way, beyond every gen(i)us of amor fati: this is our task, and our Golgotha: to become “Stoics” without a Logos: having nothing to do with Nietzsche because it has nothing to do with ressentiment; we begin only by negating him: swapping out his dancing God/incel Devil for Nimrod's arctic Light/tropical Darkness: the mocking Aeon of Judas and an all-too-humid Jesus: the Light that laughs and a Night that weeps, wishing for Peace in the name of all things: but a Gnostic wishes for War, because he knows the final trap is a victimology, and the nemocentric blade: a desert God sheds no tears: because he knows nothing scandalizes the mother of Darkness quite like becoming a “son of Cold Fire”, pushing through the grief of (particular) death to deliver all beings to (universal) non-death: who cleaves Life from the World with one terrible stroke:

Previously. . .

The human being is a TRANSCENDENTAL VIRGIN: the body, the brain, biology: are “concessions” to the credibility of a public physics, and the principles of admixture besides: the “means” by which I am made valid for a World – how a non-biological Vision is made valid for an eye – not how the World makes me valid for me... in other words, it is not just that the World is an occasion for selves (Metzinger's pole = all a self is, is the utility it has for the information processing systems we call brains), but it is selves that are occasions for the World: not an agent without a Self (Yaldabaoth = nemocentric space), but a Self without a Face... not a Demon of the Circle, but an Angel of the tangent line... Man and the World are RADICALLY – not absolutely – distinct: not absolutely because the former is still solicited by the latter – but in such a way this difference is only operative on the side of transcendence: in myself I am in-different, I am objectified only on that side of me which is objectivated to begin with... I am objectified unilaterally, and it is this superposition – this “relation of relation to non-relation” - this mode which underdetermines every mode - which Henry fails to grasp: but who will you be? Tomóceusz or Gyugyu? The monster who reigns at the top of the world, the supreme right of force? Or his eternal Slave, the V which suffers this force with a conscience clear as a winter star? Because “only suffering makes one good”: only suffering sunders the (non-)connective tissue between myself and the disjunctive graft of the body, cosmic mind... only in suffering does the World protrude into me to such an extreme it protrudes past me... to be “given-without-givenness”, to enter and leave without a splash: a sun without a corona: we here oppose the (transcendentally naive) Identity of Laruelle's One to the God of Schelling's (onanistic) noncoincidence with himself, the “divine” madness of a freedom never “free to be unfree”: this Identity (of which I am a clone) is exactly why Brassier's criticism of phenomenological “mineness” falls so flat, the issue isn't that my “mineness” is abstract - interchangeable with yours, but that there must exist some criterion which primitively accounts for why I am gripped by MY locus as opposed to yours... if this priority is immanent to me myself: if this criterion is MY OWN immanence - a night vision which surveys all visions in accordance only with the condition in which it is held – then the Stranger is identically every Stranger, precisely a Sellarsian “distributed singular term”: and what a “marvel of marvels … [that] such wealth has come to dwell in [such] poverty”: the whole point is to formalize an INDESTRUCTIBLE EXIT from the positive universe: to immunize the non-ontological to the malaria of the ontological: not that it ever needed immunity, we just needed a reminder: RETRACT THY PROBOSCIS: Get The Vaccine :^)

Human beings are TOKENS OF A GENERIC MATRIX: the body, the brain, biology: are transcendental “concessions” to a public physics, and the principles of admixture besides: the “means” by which I am made valid for a World – how a non-biological Vision is made valid for an eye – not how the World makes me valid for me... in other words, it is not just that the World is an occasion for selves (Metzinger's pole = all a self is, is the utility it has for the information processing systems we call brains), but it is selves that are occasions for the World: not an agent without a Self (Yaldabaoth = nemocentric space), but a Self without a Face... not a Demon of the Circle, but an Angel of the tangent line... Man and the World are RADICALLY – not absolutely – distinct: not absolutely because the former is still affected by the latter – but in such a way this difference is only operative on the side of transcendence: in myself I am in-different, I am objectified only on that side of me which is in any case objectivated to begin with... I am objectified unilaterally, and it is this superposition – this “relation of relation to non-relation” - this mode which is also the underdetermination of every mode - which Henry fails to grasp: but who will you be? Tomóceusz or Gyugyu? The monster who reigns at the top of the world, the supreme right of force? Or his eternal Slave, the V which suffers his force with conscience clear as a winter star? Because “only suffering makes one good”: only suffering sunders the (non-)connective tissue between myself and the disjunctive graft of the body, cosmic mind... only in suffering does the World protrude into me to such an extreme it protrudes past me... to be “given-without-givenness”, to enter and leave without a splash: a sun without a corona: we here oppose the (transcendentally naive) Identity of the One with the God of Schelling's (onanistic) noncoincidence with himself, the “divine” madness of a freedom never “free to be unfree”: this Identity (of which I am a clone) is precisely why Brassier's criticism of phenomenological “mineness” falls so flat, the issue isn't that my “mineness” is abstract - interchangeable with yours, but precisely that I am gripped by MY locus as opposed to yours, that there must exist some criterion that determines my being gripped by THIS self-model as opposed to this one ... if this difference is an immanent one – if the night vision which surveys all possible visions in-itself is itself self-selected – then the Stranger is generically every Stranger, and what a “marvel of marvels … [that] such wealth has come to dwell in [such] poverty”: the whole point of all this is to formalize an INDESTRUCTIBLE EXIT from the positive universe: to immunize the non-ontological to the malaria of the ontological: not that it ever needed immunity, we just needed a reminder: RETRACT THY PROBOSCIS: Get The Vaccine :^)

EVIL IS IN THE ONE BUT NOT OF IT: how do we explain the (relative) autonomy of the World without deriving it from the radical autonomy of the One? Synthesizing Zoroastrian "privatio boni" with a properly Gnostic arch-dualism: Evil which both pre-sists and sub-sists: not an (un)Ground which vomits up Mixtures, but an anorexia of Mixture which must "pass through" an (under)Ground to be bound to binding: AEONS ARE AXIOMS, DEMONS ARE (TRANSCENDENTAL) CIRCLES: the BwO is an "unreflected reflection" of the One overdetermining death as disintegration, flavored water apeiron... The penalty I pay to "my" ground for being differentiated from it is the interest I pay on all loans: the Black Cube is a Black Square: the black image plane of the synthetic a priori: Sophia's failed descent into the White Hole of the Good Father flattened or "convexified" Wisdom into the Horos, Yaldabaoth trailing, the obscene afterbirth of space/time: forget Kant's mirror ball monads, we're talking Husserl's glass telluria (subjective vs. OBJECTIVE a priori structures of experience): but with one caveat: the World possesses a NON-ABSOLUTE essence: no more parallax bread, but non-thetic pumpernickel: objects are transcendental zones, fuzzball dispersions: Mulla Sudra: the more essence something has, the less real it is: this is how a God sees the World, not as static Form or an empty virtual = x but a Void lanced by rainbows, or a Rainbow-of-rainbows... Reality is the superposition of two kinds of prisons: one for demons, one for angels: as such it is "superposable", superpositive, THE SITE WHERE EVIL CAN BE KILLED: we're not preaching another tired womb-lust precisely because the One here is off-limits, the anti-cervix, it underdetermines me not like a World overdetermined as the universal solvent of affliction but as my own private Gethsemane which seizes the chora like a tiger, which conquers nothing but the World's power to pose and re-pose itself ad infinitum... I eat the heart of space on my side from the inside out: (in)voluntary incarceration: Gods are each other because they are no one but themselves, humans are no one because they're nothing but each other: "He is a man in the world, but he is not of the world. And amen, I say unto you: that man is I and I am that man."

The Gnostic is a corn in the god-shit: "in the world, but not of it": two escape vectors in Shawshank, the gnosticist and the buddhic: Andy crawls through the rectum of spacetime directly to freedom, while Red takes the perpendicular express: by becoming fully non-positional, unclenched: his sorge neutralized: but helpless and stillborn, abandoned to the blizzard of wills that is the Outside, Red must still pursue Andy to his final destination: a "warm place with no memory." A formless blue.

"And amen, I say unto you: that man is I and I am that man."

GOD IS A BANANAFISH: a topos or SUN-SPOT on the face of Muspel (the non-ontological lux): how do we conceptualize a properly heretical break with the World, separation-without-performation? By making Kant sleep outside: life in this mixture just is life in a radically heterogenous field where Love, Murder, and the glue of Love and Murder coincide: thought functions as an AUTO-POSITIONAL binding agent (dis)joining identity and non-identity under an invariant schematism: rooted in a chora or “degree-zero” of ipseity that operates as the quilting point (… line, tube) of an “OBVERSE = PERVERSE” forebrain: that spirit of sufficiency which stitches (transubstantiates) the given into a givenness: extension is here the most diabolical principle, Achad saw through Crowley's scheme to feed his followers to Nuit, the demoness of space... Samsara is beginningless because it's minimally existent like advertising is: nonzero “clicks” are guaranteed so long as there's something TO click, always ash in an ash tray and always a bananahole for a bananafish: remember that the tetralemma applies to primal matter, the Zoroastrian Devil (who exists because he sub-sists, kind of like a certain Idea of Evil), and the Void of Buddhism: Lacan wrote the manual on how to wire humans as sex-death machines, properly Manichaean depositories of light: only with Mani could we think an anthropocentrism that is at once an anthropology of evil: of death “congealed into subjects” syntonizing their slavery to a non-all, one face of the Necker nod: some just belong to the hell of themselves, animals surely: the history of the subject is really the history of the transcendental production of an INVARIANT cognitive field, the pornographic screen of the synthetic a priori (extracting figures from grounds and forms from figures): but categories make no sense as logical operators: an organ itself is a category, or a power of phenomenalisation publicized: we're growing veins for organs we don't even have yet: “tongues are older than stomachs”: Laruelle's evil is sufficiency, Adorno's inertia: but what if the production of invariances itself were an invariant, radically “naturalized”? I determine the Real as something that I'm not, the terror & terrorism of the circle: not the Platonic chimney, a ladder laid flat on an archipelago of modes: “Jehovah dictates, Christ underdetermines”:

GOD IS A BANANAFISH: a topos or SUN-SPOT on the face of Muspel (the pre-ontological lux): how do we conceptualize a real heretical break with the World, separation-without-performation? By making Kant sleep outside: life in this mixture just is life in a radically heterogenous field where Love, Murder, and the glue of Love and Murder coincide: thought is an AUTO-POSITIONAL binding agent (dis)joining identity and non-identity under an invariant schematism: rooted in a chora or “degree-zero” of givenness that functions as the quilting point (… line, tube) of an “OBVERSE = PERVERSE” forebrain: extension is here the most diabolical principle, Achad saw through Crowley's scheme to feed his followers to Nuit, the demoness of space... Samsara is beginningless because it's minimally existent like advertising is: nonzero “clicks” are guaranteed so long as clicking is possible, always ash in an ash tray: remember that the tetralemma applies to primal matter, the Zoroastrian Devil (who is real because he does not exist, kind of like a certain Idea of Evil), and the Void of Buddhism: Lacan wrote the manual on how to wire humans as sex-death machines, properly Manichaean depositories of light: only with Mani could we think an anthropocentrism that is at once an anthropology of evil: of death “congealed into subjects” syntonizing their slavery to a non-all, one face of the Necker nod: some just belong to the hell of themselves, animals surely: what we talk about when we talk about subjectivity is really the “self-intrinsic” emergence of an invariant and UNILATERAL cognitive field: the pornographic screen of the synthetic a priori (extracting figures from grounds and forms from figures): but categories make no sense as logical operators: an organ itself is a category, or a power of phenomenalisation publicized: we're growing veins for organs we don't even have yet: “tongues are older than stomachs”: Laruelle's evil is sufficiency, Adorno's inertia: but what if the production of invariances itself were an invariant, radically “naturalized”? I determine the Real as something that I'm not, the terror & terrorism of the circle: not the Platonic chimney, a ladder laid flat on an archipelago of modes: “Jehovah dictates, Christ underdetermines”:

I've read Georges Bataille, Pierre Guyotat, Kathy Acker, DAF de Sade, Pierre Klossowski, Dennis Cooper, Peter Sotos, William S Burroughs, Sigmund Freud, Vilem Flusser, Denis Hollier, The Lake by Kawabata, Hell by Barbusse, Tony Duvert, early Lyotard, Yukio Mishima, François Rabelais, A Sentimental Novel by Robbe-Grillet, and Unica Zürn, now what do i read?

"The image is the murder of the pure present" as Adam is the imago dei: a copulation of surfaces, the nothing furious with itself, fathers boiled before they're eaten, monads pulled into spines.

Every heart goes to the olive-press.
Animals were not always carnivorous.
Space is a television screen.

"The Devil is real, but does not exist" - the Devil is a ventriloquist. The univocity of "teeth and stomachs": the will that only asks we let things be, not interfere with the self-selection of chaos, Abraxas: the Shit-Eating Donut of (Carpocratic) Time: and the sovereign is a superpredator, the lord of a white sunspot on the surface of a black star. But there are other stars, which are other Eggs, and they watch you with knowledge glinting like a diamond in their shut eyes.

GNOSIS HAS A SMALL PENIS: the gnostic affirms an antagonism to the world tout court; antagonism to the network of recognition: lives the microphallic terror of "being seen": being caught with your pants down in the thermodynamic torture chamber: Christ turned the screw of dysphoria 3 times: man - jew - yeshua: no wonder he never spoke to his father: Jesus was a bastard son of reality and death is psychosomatic: eccentricity crucifies: "in the world" but "not of it", God is the No, the "not as if" of golgotha attractors, time bomb ruminates: