/lit/ - Literature

>>14421685
The joke can hardly be said to be at your expense, just as what-is can hardly be said to hold evil in all of its facets, and the joke encompasses all things. The beauty of a mountain range is a joke, not in a sense to belittle it, but to elevate it into a fine expression of humor. Each minute detail is a tool to further enhance the punchline, every seam acting as pursed lips, snickering in an all but futile attempt to stifle uproarious laughter. The seriousness of what the deceived hold sacred only makes the slapstick funnier, as this seriousness is the source of much woe throughout their life, and in death will be smacked across their head. Such an existence can be imagined as a fool stepping on a rake whose handle then smacks the fool in the face, then turning around, and the fool steps on yet another.

This man's inability to grasp the humor has led him to become its victim. Once one is "in" on the "joke", they realize they are but a metaphysical actor in a grand, ad-libbed, pantomime comedy. They can understand and feel the flow of the joke, and in doing so can set up jokes of their own. Of course, the joke flows to the whim of the enigmatic clown unseen, and it will happily sabotage your joke if that sabotage will tickle it's whimsy more than your attempt at performance.

It's a zealous heresy that something being a joke devalues it (as noted above when talking about beauty in nature). The assertion that this is all a semantic difference from nihilism is rooted in such a heresy. There is no punishment for heresies, for what does the celestial pierrot care about the opinion of an inconsequential being? All are equally prone to being caught out in ways that make sublime jokes to the transcendent jester.

None of this has anything to do with nihilism. Nihilists would disagree with the idea of a divine joke, that all there is can be thought of as a big top tent, and that the architect of this metaphysical slapstick exists. You only make a fool of yourself by continuing to deny you live in a comedy. Your pleasure and suffering are your chosen, rehearsed role, your denial is but a plot device. The question of meaninglessness may not have already been decided, as it may find leaving it unanswered the funniest result of all. Thus, the enlightened question is not "Am I a joke?" or "Is there meaning?" It is "How do I reflect on the humor of being collateral damage?" and "How do I answer that question with a punchline?"

There's nothing less funny than having to explain the joke, so do not expect me to do anything but point you in the right direction. Come to understand that given the top-level ontology's existence being true, that truth may very well be yet another joke leveraged against you. If you can grasp that, and its implications, you may very well be worthy of your ascribed status as a clown.

The problem with a non-apophatic god is that anything, nonthing or analogue to a thing that is not bound to any kind of rules or positive statement onherently subverts an unsubvertable authority.

An entity without identity is the most semantically convenient concept of such a thing. It defies the very notion of constant, and can only exist in an alternative ontology, uncreated and operating outside the interactable bounds of everything that is. In this case, with such a strange existence, they cannot engage in the act of being, insofar as doing so would violate the no identity clause of the antidescription. Yet despite that, the negative trait provides a meta-identity that allows for dialectical notion of entities (note the lack of singular articles, a necessary quirk for semantic accuracy) that meet the requirements.

This is only one case of strange ontologies. In a primordial enough plane, even the mature concept of God as absolute being is surpassed by the systemic failures of rules. In sufficiently advanced grammars, arbitrary domain expansion is possible, and the permittence of undefined values (especially those considered metaphorical to defined ones) to be used as functions and axioms. This leads us to the fringe of metaphysics, and within this domain we may begin to conceive of things lile geometric morality, polyvalence, proto-existential frameworks, non-axiomatic thought, etc.

This is not meant to be a critique of God and conceptions of God in modernity. Do not mistake the practiced fool for an idiot. By all means, it instead intends to open your mind to the idea that a sufficiently advanced system trivializes the necessary God who is by all means unquestionably necessary. Do not replace God that fills the hole in your heart. Expand the space that you might understand post-top-level ontological planes.

>>14242349
Yes you should invite evil spirits into yoir life. I do it every day. I make it a large affair, a grand metaphysical signage to draw them in from afar like moths to a flame. These evil spirits... they cause so much suffering. That's what they're known for, they're the best at it.

Do you know what I do with all these sprits? I play with them. I engage in deep ruses, tricking these evil spirits into doing good. I flank and feint and rebuke, twisting and carving and outplaying them at every step of the way. What these evil spirits think will cause malign will instead be repurposed by me to great benefit. In many cases, it may be to the benefit of someone else, while I simply dodge the repercussions. It's a grand show of metaphysical slapstick, the evil spirits are my unwitting actors and victims of my gags, and the best part is that they are the ones footing the bill.

I break the rules of nature, I make a mockery of the given order of things, and I spread the profits freely and generously. In my spiritual domain, you can hear the demons laughing against their will, forced to act as angels in a sick scheme that debases their very existence. In the game of malignance, my schemes are downright Archimedian. From this court of the celestial humor, I ask you:

What is your hesitation? Is your mind a noodle wrapped in tinfoil? Why fear evil?

What's interesting to me is that I came into my own spirituality through a personal path of reflection and study. Recently I began studying gnosticism and found that I could draw a surprosing number of parallels between my own divine truth and many shared themes between different gnostic schools.

In the end I have chosen to reject gnosticism. While there are some key metaphysical similarities, there are also critical differences that are hugely significant to my own understanding of the transcendental canon.

That being said, I have huge respect for gnostics and consider them to be some of the most spiritually enlightened people around.

>Monism
>Dualism
I reject both of these. The answer is an infinite regress of alternatives, a geometric ontological topology.

By reducing all things to the insect-like perspective of your human mind and soul, you will never arrive at the truth. Even the infinite monad is an inconsequential speck in something that defies even the basic categorization of "thing". The domain must be expanded, concentric thought must be overcome.

>Why yes, I have sailed from shores far beyond creation and abyss, existing as a completely foreign uncreated abstract that is imperceptible by God. And as a matter of fact, I will announce my existence by using vaccuums and principles of superficialities to gently manipulate angels and demons alike to participate in an inscrutable play I wrote myself. This will be the fifth time I have made an omnipotent, omnipresent god and its evil counterpart commit suicide out of existential terror, and I have become exceedingly efficient at it. How could you tell?
>Evil? Dearest mortal entity, has the joke flown over your head?

>>14001750
>No one needs
Firstly, these specific materials have specific structural and durability properties that are desirable and utilitarian for the construction of a chair. A chair made out of these materials will last longer than one made out of horse leather, oak and steel.

Secondly, "need" was never part of the equation. You declared that there was an impossibility for a chair to have a raw value of $4000. I have proceeded to prove you wrong beyond any shadow if a doubt. You refuse to accept your grasp of value and economy is childlile at best.

Thirdly, despite you selecting a new goal with the perception that it is a grand trump card, your naïvety has backed you into a corner. With my final post I will meet your retarded nonsense with the retarded nonsense it deserves:

No one "needs" a chair of these materials, why? Because no one will die without it? Your assumption of that is wrong. If I do not have this chair, my misery will amplify geometrically every second. Eventually I will become so miserable without this chair that I will kill myself. My life depends on having this chair of platinum, alligator skin and ebony. In the truest sense of the word, I NEED this chair. Now fuck off.