/lit/ - Literature

>>12478053
Instead of skipping ahead to a re-incarnation, I think we should take a look at our current incarnations. People are curious about something from our current incarnation passing on to a subsequent incarnation, but rarely seem to think about the previous incarnation(s) that got us to our current ones.

So where do the influences of my current incarnation arise? As it turns out, they aren't from a single source, my current incarnation is dependent on a myriad of influences. My ideas are mostly from other people, in the sense that I have been given thoughts from people stretching back thousands of years. My father has played a big part in laying the groundwork for my though processes and mind, but so has my mother, even someone as old as Plato has reached across time to influence my development in this incarnation. I may develop these idea independently, then re-transmit them, influencing the incarnation of another.

My origination is dependent on nearly everyone else, human and nonhuman, on Earth. Some of it is in my genes, but those were only passed down to me because they benefitted some previous incarnation - not of me, but of someone.

I continue to change as well, so the fixedness of my self is questionable as well - I consider my self to be completely different than the one I had as a child. Sure, we share memories and maybe qualia, but apart from that we are nothing alike. If young Anon had taken a different route, would he still be me, or would that be a branching of this soul?

>>12441513
i don't know, i haven't played it. i just like those aesthetics.

Andre Bazin, who was a deity of film criticism, had a good rule: basically, don't review films you don't like (and i think Deleuze would have agreed with this also, in a philosophical sense). the same holds for games. if the thing is *good,* whatever critique or analysis you are going to make of it needs only to understand it in terms of that.

all a roundabout way of saying: you tell us. explore the space, i'm intrigued. why would it be capital? tell us about hyperlight mechanics.

>>12441533
i should read this. also >>12441543 is right. here's the link:
https://vastabrupt.com/2018/10/31/gender-acceleration/

>>12441656
it is very hard to find a flaw in JB. no Lovecraftian stuff in him; his endgame predictions were more about bloat and disaster, catastrophe rather than Eerie Triumph for the gods of R'lyeh. it's not a crazy prediction: if, ultimately, Landian horror gets wiped out in a wave of stupidity and decadence, swamping both extremes in a stultifying heat.

the wedding of Marx and Freud is what produces postmodernity at least in its academic sense; the wedding of neomarxism to capital seems finally to be revealing itself as a kind of absolutely doomed evangelism, as Woke Capital. but the crazy thing about this is watching the corporations just roll completely for the religious/critical aspects. capital reigns supreme, only to devour itself. the Bush-era neocons destroyed Iraq in order to set up Halliburton to rebuild it; the neolibs of today seem to be destroying their own country in order to let Google et al do the same. in both cases, of course, it's easy to blow up a country you don't live in, and reap the rewards laundered through the market.

it's a stupid and reductive thesis, but there is a common thread of carrots and sticks in both, of moral puritanism wed to ruthlessly cynical politics. how else do you explain the current fury? one decade of cynical imperialism goes unpunished; why not another, that justifies itself purely by being the reverse of what came before it? man is a wolf to man. and i am saddened that these things make sense to me.

God being dead seems easy; it's letting go of Marx that will really fuck your shit up. then you find yourself suddenly looking to all kinds of outrageous things to orient yourself again.