/lit/ - Literature

>>21604209

No second part. It's me again. I think he's dead.

Just as Rococo distinguishes itself from Baroque not by adding but by subtracting something, pretense, abortion distinguishes itself from birth by laying it bare. Abortion preemptively fulfills the allegedly Christian meaning of life, to be destroyed by being torn apart and consumed by others. Walking two miles with “Hegelians”, indeed, Paul has surpassed both life affirmers and life deniers with an exquisite coincidence of opposites. God would sell himself short had he only been Ontologically in front of one, abortion allows him to be behind one as well. Similarly, “Hegelians” are selling themselves short by worshiping the gap, and by depriving it of its properly Hegelian conclusion. The skull of the fetus is pierced by closed forceps and torn apart by their opening, perhaps this is the best exegesis of the gap: not a proper void spanned by the actual, but the void behind which an actual is barricaded. The mirror of the second death, the first birth, constituting a damned coincidence of another conception, another birth, and another life; the contiguity cloaked in a negativity so naive that it approaches ideology, a MacGuffin mystically animating each party, vulgar Platonism of Form-instantiation renamed as Void-actual. Indeed, the “Hegelian” gap is Hegel’s prominent domestication, just as the alleged gap is the guile of the actual bottom beneath it; and, stranger still, of his mercantilization, Hegel being thereby subsumed by Marx under the pretense of the latter returning to the former, the gap being the mere renaming of the mystical Objective, Material, Phenomenal, etc., the divine right by which Capitalism, and its “natural” conclusion, Marxism, are said to rule. This being a properly Hegelian conclusion. Does the blueprint according to which the actual is vital to God, the latter being across an otherwise impassable gap, if not otherwise not being at all, not betray something unspeakably perverse? Is it not an invitation to grab a sword by the blade? Just as the Capitalist cannot be the sum of his actions without disowning the majority, even the totality, of his actions as externalities, Yaldabaoth cannot be God without the abortion of Creation. However, the gap between the Capitalist and externality is totally fabricated by the Capitalist, it is his only proper work. It is not that externality is a necessary Evil vital for Capitalism’s Messianic mission of transforming the Objective, Material, Phenomenal, etc. which precedes it, the gap, rather, the gap is the mere Evil cloaking the Evil good (1) of Capitalism. It is not that the abjection of color as pigment, and the black resulting from the combination of pigments, is engendered to make color as light, and the white resulting from the combination of lights, that much more brilliant, rather, the abjection of pigment engenders the coherence of color and fraudulently makes it the Dialectical means by which light and pigment interact.

All threads, and all replies for that matter, cancelled indefinitely.

>>19857212
>muh objectivity
STFU dumbass, there is nothing objective about your oPiNiOn

When's the next thread?

Why do things end? All Philosophers agree that presence is full of any and every thing's means of destruction, so much so that it barely contains anything else, but maintain that presence must be implicitly distinguished therefrom, strictly defined as that without which neither the things nor their actual causes of destruction would be. The implicit blueprint is the neutrality of presence and the negative Evil of destruction mixed, if not coincided, with the positive things. However, I maintain that it is presence itself that is Evil, that it absolutely coincides with the means of destruction which are positive and in turn destroy, or rather unmake, negative things. In vulgar Gnosticism, that is crypto-Catholic or even pure Catholic ascription, the world is mere theft, Evil steals from Good, implicit substance is reactively partially exhausted toward a temporarily deprived byproduct, whereas a Gnostic reading of Gnosticism reveals the world as reverse theft, Evil as an ever-accumulating input whereby permanent essential byproducts, essentially negative, are indefinitely deprived through the proactive coincidence of substance and exhaustion that is presence. Good vanishes not only from the world but from being itself. Things do not end because they are, rather, they only are insofar as they end. I only disagree with Protestants because they are not Protestant enough: I am not only Evil, a banal claim that only removes me from Theological gravity, I am a crime scene, THE crime scene. Not a body given birth at the expense of a soul, but a cadaver given death at its own expense. Perhaps the Western Materialism-vulgar Buddhism-Liberal Capitalism triad should be taken for its word: growth, change, movement, etc. are all sanitized terms for death but, moreover, as the triad makes no meaningful distinction between change and entropy, the latter sucks the former into itself, its objects implicitly destroyed, death becomes a lifelong, or deathlong, "process", not so much dying, a classic process with a plausible beginning and end, but a "process" in the true sense of the pejoratively Heraclitean, dying would imply that there is something TO die, but nothing ever is to being with, since there is no distinction between change and entropy, the "process" of dying has no object and thus Dialectically becomes a "thing" per the pejoratively Parmenidean, the resplendent eternal block is the very Black Cube writhing with ever-accumulating undeath. What is the body? Countless gripping hands shaping its outline, countless stomping soles compacting its bones, countless biting teeth tearing its innards; the HYPERCADAVER. The ever-dying cadaver as the "coincidence of opposites" of the mortal body and immortal soul.

The most common idea about the premise of Job is totally opposite to the text itself. The text makes it explicit that there is no idyllic God-Job relation that Satan reactively interferes in. Who brings up Job? Who singles him out? Who puts him under the microscope? Who forces a tremendous volume of his own unwanted input onto him? GOD, not Satan. Job's obscene exceptionalism is proactively mentioned by God, not reactively questioned by Satan. Even the first, and second, question between God and Satan is asked by GOD, Job being the mere object, fetish, that God uses to "accuse" Satan. Accuse of what? Exactly.

>One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
>Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”
>Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”

The question of what does God want from Satan is hidden in plain sight, perfectly matches God's treatment of Job, the unwanted input, and is vital to the conclusion that God himself is the proactive accuser or adversary. The meaning of the text might be subsumed in this initial exchange. Perhaps even the interpretation that Satan is a lesser Evil alleviating the Demiurgic pathology by destroying the input is not radical enough. The Atheist idea of collaboration, usually, and in a case of tragic intellectual bankruptcy, ascribed to God and Satan at Job's expense, is tangentially relevant: perhaps it is Satan and Job collaborating at God's expense. Ignoring God's exhibitionist melodrama, Job being fooled by it (provided that this interpretation is correct) is understandable, the READER being fooled by its DESCRIPTION and suspending judgement of the subsequent text is pathetic; God replacing Job's goods and children is by far the most scandalous thing done to Job, this time without Satan's help. Job's exceptionalism is the very cause of the sadomasochist session in the first place, other than a terror even greater than the one of the "Satanic" torture and the one of the Divine torture pornography - the latter being by far the worse and, again, done by God without Satan's help - combined, what purpose could God's restoration have? Perhaps this is how Satan collaborates with Job: in destroying his goods and murdering his children, knowing that it will prompt God to replace them, Satan makes God unwittingly answer Job, even AFTER Job supposedly conceded to God, after God successfully accuses Job. The abysmal Demiurgic act is the concession that while God might be "Job-proof" and "Satan-proof", he is NOT "God-proof": his law and will are not mysterious by virtue of their legitimate incomprehensibility, but by virtue of their illegitimate incontinence, God cannot help himself.

From a generally Gnostic vantage point, the problem of good is not that one can perceive good in a totally Evil world, but that this good distinguishes itself from the Evil not by being good but by being even more Evil. For example: the mouth distinguishes itself from the anus not by being good, opposing excretion, but by being even more Evil, the prominent excretor dumping in. The latter is deficient of the former after all! Incidentally, Darwin as a crypto-scatologist: the food in the food chain, the gene as that which is selected, and mating as that which selects, replace these with excrement for his total intellectual rehabilitation. The Evil of this good is long-form, the mouth anatomically relating to the anus perfectly illustrates this: one must traverse whole Philosophical structures to reach it just as one must traverse the whole digestive system backward to reach the mouth. Recall the Taxi Driver scene where Matthew embraces Iris and tells her that he loves her. The mere Evil would be that he is lying and that she is being manipulated, the Evil good would be that he is telling the truth and that she earnestly believes him. Is this not the prominent love? Is this not the ultimate depravity? Though it is tempting to thereby condemn the "true Self" as the locus of the Evil good, one would miss another, Formal, Evil good in doing so. The perfidy of love is a microcosm of the Evil good, look no further than the "real love" vs. "fake analysis" argument: the INTRA of analysis is allegedly not only useless but "fake" against the not only useful but "real" INTER of love. Nothing could be further from the truth. The INTRA is itself an analytic impasse, more "real" than the love of the INTER and pertains to the "real" love inasmuch as it is deprived, purified, even of the little it had.

>>18532420

I'm using this one exclusively now, probably should start using for replies too.

All critiques of Capitalism, Marxist or otherwise, that rebuke work fail to account for the nature of that which they want to replace it with. Ignoring the fact the Marx argues for abolishing everything BUT work, that you can have lifelong unemployment in the Capitalist utopia but not in the Marxist one, work is usually replaced with either sensuous or social pleasures when actually rebuked in various arguments. However, said pleasures are themselves nothing but work. Ironically, this is disguised by the absence of payment, had one been payed minimum wage for a minimally "leisurely" activity, say, a day at the beach then one would surely consider it exploitation, indignity, slavery, etc., but introjection of both the idea and the act of leisure as being one's own prevents the realization. The leisure-work similarity is most obvious in "factory leisure": beaches and other outdoor resorts, intoxication sites, entertainment sites, etc., all process people as the factories in Marx's nightmares. It is not so much that leisure rests on work, is contingent on work, is defined by work, leisure simply IS work. Any and all instances of leisure are likewise indistinguishable from instances of work, everything from one's own home being an endless construction site of "cleaning" and "improvement", to one's altered states being boulders one arduously breaks, to one's family being servitude and bookkeeping, all leisure is work. One readily defines having experienced utmost leisure as total exhaustion. One puts up with MORE, not less, of what one allegedly opposes in work provided that one is convinced, no, forced to believe that it is what one truly wants. Yaldabaoth is the greatest comedian. Therein, it is Capitalist work itself that is the panacea, for believers, and the pejorative opium, for doubters. Work being tiring is a guise for the truth revealed in leisure being as, if not more, tiring: to perceive is to work, the Phenomenal world is ONTOLOGICALLY vampiric. It is hardly coincidental that this is the most ridiculed definition of Idealism, accepting it as a principle rather than a post-analytic fancy damns the world.

Catholics-Socialists want to Capitalize the domestic inasmuch as Protestant-Capitalists want to domesticate the Capital, "Protestant work ethic" is only innovative in content: the C-S proudly claims that the P-C is only wrong because he works for himself and the P-C claims that the C-S is only wrong because he works for others. The C-S is as, if not more, morbid than the P-C in worshiping work. Neither inquires about the truth of work and its place in the Phenomenal world. In fact, the C-S is even more choleric than the P-C, his pretension to being a good person revealing itself to be nothing more than bestial obsession with exertion at the slightest critique of work. The C-S implicitly Philosophically conceding to the P-C in claiming the P-C idea fundamentally good, only criticizing it inasmuch as it fails to impose itself onto a minority of people (!): money and material goods toward sensuous pleasures are the highest good, and are only bad inasmuch the people sanctioned by the C-S are not experiencing them. Likewise, the P-C implicitly Philosophically concedes to the C-S in claiming the C-S idea fundamentally good, only criticizing it inasmuch as it fails to embrace a particular kind of servitude: servitude is the highest good, and is only bad inasmuch as it excludes P-C-sanctioned servitude. The reified effects of this convergence are as obvious as they are tragic, people whose whole lives consist of nothing more than work to mitigate the consequences of their lives consisting of nothing more than work and people whose whole lives consist of nothing more than medical treatment to mitigate the consequences of their lives consisting of nothing more than medical treatment; the C-S is, again, at least as, if not more, morbid than the P-C in prescribing people a lifetime of suffering. Per the P-C, you must suffer incidentally, per the C-S, you must suffer. In light of this, the "primitive" or "shallow" Gnostic and Orthodox attitudes toward work are anything but. If you happen to be into Socionics, map the Christian branches onto the quadras for further elaboration: Gnostic-Gamma, Orthodox-Delta, Catholic-Alpha, Protestant-Beta.

Recall the Freddy Got Fingered scene where Gord throws the bust of Freud through the window before going through it himself. The impregnation metaphor is as obvious as it is innocuous: the bust breaking the glass as sperm penetrating the egg and Gord as the child now gestating in a world made motherly by the father's removal. The birth metaphor on the other hand is as tantalizing as it is monstrous: the bust as the third sexual organ, i.e. the plaster idol of the man vulgarly synonymous with morbid sexuality precedes Gord as the morbidity of sexuality precedes the child. The child effectively being the third sexual organ from the world's perspective: all parenthood is exclusively libidinal and proudly so, mercy and rigor are given to him in true phallic reverence and yonic cruelty, respectively. Parents do not use their children as "proof that they have sex", they use them TO have sex. The libido far surpasses the scope of the genital and of any one other person, and is instead invested in the child by way of feeding, sheltering, clothing, etc. with the whole world as a sexual partner, as it receives the libido-soaked child and as he perceives it, just as bodily sexual tension is invested into the bodily sexual act by way of the genitals. Coincide the previous metaphors, or rather, acknowledge their actual coincidence in the same scene for a tremendous analytic shortcut: reproduction is reproduction of sexuality. The genital is reproduced in full, up the fractal vista. In a Demiurgic mockery, the parent "finishes sex", he fucks the world. This maps exactly onto the abomination of Atonement: the sacrifice of animals and criminals as genital sex and Jesus as the third sexual organ whereby the "Father" fucks the world, the world becoming complicit to his reproduction, the apotheosis, of petty sacrifice. More to the point that the most Gnostic texts are the Canonical Gospels themselves, nowhere does the Victor speak more ominously:

>And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
>But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
>Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

The Catholic argument that grace is an intervention proactively coming strictly from without is absurd. The common denominator of all grace theory is that one can do nothing to receive it, that it does not thermodynamically communicate with anyone or anything, figuratively and/or literally. However, the motif of all grace theory is that one receives it ultimately because one needs it. The contradiction here is not only typically Catholic, the world is a catastrophe even though it is God's magnum opus and such, but exclusively Catholic in that it is deliberately explicitly absurd to make one look for coherence in the implicit. Incidentally, the Catholic is once again the only one doing what he is accusing the Gnostic of. The former's encyclopedic knowledge of the latter's proclivities is a mirror. The contradiction being that, Ontologically, grace is said to come from without but its cause is not even from within but the within itself, Teleologically. I do not suppose that even the Catholic can speak of grace without a recipient, it therefore can be said that it is proactively given by God inasmuch as it is proactively needed by man. Far from being Dialectical, this suspension is a categorical subordination of the above to the below. Grace is yet another discharge of an excess or filling of a lack, going from God to man as a stone rolls downhill. Worse still, it is more thermodynamic than thermodynamics: it is not so much that it mires the Theological in the thermodynamic, rather, the thermodynamic expands to engulf both parties, the very form of all things is made thermodynamic. Moreover, grace as such is the polar opposite of an intervention from without and is only distinguished from worldly things by being the most worldly thing. It is common knowledge that all matters of Catholic Theology are merely apotheoses of (bad) Phenomenology, i.e. God the Father is the perfect predator and the Son the perfect prey, however, note the implicit perfidy that grace as such is, again, not congruent with ideas of the implicit Garden wherein grace is a perfect thermodynamic agent of a thermodynamically perfect world, but a Demiurgic comedy of a Cosmic arbeit macht frei. Explicitly, the Catholic claims worldly matters are of utmost importance yet claims that grace has practically no effect thereon. Implicitly, this contradiction has the gravest implications. Consider its resolution in the argument that grace itself is the cause of any and all things grace allegedly delivers one from. That its engulfing of sin is so great that it even gets under or behind it, to its very inscription into man, propagation into the world, and perpetuation of its own necessity; the final perfidy. Consider Reason as the true intervention. Its very form, opposing the Empirical, is literally the only thing not of the world. Salvation is a truly abortive process, not the Earthly bud blooming into the Heavenly flower, but the egg cracked from the outside.

Previously: >>/lit/thread/S16585546

There are people who think that dinosaurs or Space are fake. Indeed, fossils being a late 18th century novelty, most specimens in museums being plaster reproductions, most fossils being fragments of the alleged life forms, fossils and the theories they are integral to appearing simultaneously, the known forgeries of the first "archaeologists", etc., and likewise the irony that "space" and the "science" it has become synonymous with have nothing to do with the Empirical, instead proudly presenting computer-generated images and dogmatic equations as the apotheosis of knowing, all of this is cause enough for concern. But I maintain that said people are wrong merely because they do not go far enough. Walking two miles, why can dinosaurs or planets be fake but the soil and the space itself from which, or into which, they are forged cannot be as, or more, fake? Sidestepping Mereological Nihilism and "Solipsism" (whatever it means), what if Phenomena ran away from us and dissipated precisely when assumed to be the "hardest"? From a literally scatological perspective, consider the "mediums" of the Earth and the Heavens themselves as colons and all Phenomena therein as man-made in the exact way that excrement is man-made. That is to say, man's faculties produce in the "mediums" what food produces in his colon. Phenomena as such are ultimately "fake" precisely for being "real" in the exact way that excrement is ultimately not of the body precisely for being inside of it. Whether looking down or up, consider the vista as a literal colon transmuting your faculties into falsehood. Is it not fitting that, for example, the Universe is said to be expanding, our notion of the Phenomena therein running away from us into a nothing that our faculties cannot peer into, as excrement approaches the digestively-irrelevant end of the colon where there is little to no food? Or that the "Cambrian explosion" is the end of the "Evolutionary" vista, all current taxa being terminally altered therein, as excrement is altered food? And that, similarly to spatial terrors about voids and such, there are taxonomical terrors content-wise, like man-sized crustaceans, and form-wise, like hallucigenia: the alarming sensuous monstrosity of defecation? And that this is all towards their evacuation, the breakthrough at the end of the Phenomenal tunnel being their defecation through an anus, the revelation of their falsehood? It is not that dinosaurs and Space are fake, rather, Earth and Heaven alike are falsehood-producing machines. Materialism is then a Demiurgic mockery whereby you are literally eating your own shit from the inside, the Phenomenal "conversing" with you as your shit would "converse" with the food in your mouth had it crawled back up from your colon.

Are there any misanthropic books that promote human extinction but don't approach it from the angle of nihilism?
I'm tired of insipid nihilism being used to justify anti-life ideologies. Humanity is the problem, not the Universe. Destroying mankind is good and an expression of light.