/lit/ - Literature

>>11012324
Sure, but the inexpressible comes dangerously close to the null. The problem with this view is that most people mean by the inexpressible their intense drug-like experiences, that due to their being phenomenal and accessible to perception, are by their very nature expressible. And you may be thinking of another work regarding Gregory Shaw: I was referring to his revised dissertation on Iamblichus.

Some points to make: surrealism does have a kinship with modern esoteric literature as far as it effects a visceral, literary and semantic experience. Depending on the esoterist this is a decadence. Postmodernism has arisen out of hermeneutics and semiology: as those fields were popular with structuralist anthropology that served a generation of scholars with new textual tools to reconstruct a kind of semantic closed circle, the more novel innovations in postmodernism deal with a kind of theory that the subject itself is created by the sign. Esoterica becomes in this light a kind of science of manipulation, transformation and recreation of the subject through the relations of the sign. The One becomes the Derridean differance. Since the Derridean differance finds its most immediate ancestor in Freudian unconscious, that likewise finds its ancestor in the Kantian transcendental ego, this is enough to show the absolute modernity of this kind of thought: far away from so-called ancient wisdom.

And even with this rhetorical or semantic magic, the problem with this is that this is not so-called classical esoterism. These textual and literary extravagances are miles away from the entrancing of a subject in magnetism in order to effect an alteration in the world soul. The modern theurgist is more a magician, whose rabbit-in-the-hat has been replaced with the homonym, pun and surreal irregularity

If you have that Aaron Cheak book, I'd like to know your thoughts on Algis Uzdavinys' chapter "Telestic Transformation and Philosophical Rebirth."