/lit/ - Literature

>reality
>quadrillions of balls of light and energy populating a black void
>something as familiar as relaxing in a hammock on a summer afternoon exists side-by-side with the eternal Mystery
>people think nothing matters and everything is boring

where did it all go so, so wrong?

>>11242002
>but...i don't know, it's better to create wonder. which you can only do by going outside of yourself.

exactly and i think its very interesting we're so artistically and culturally impoverished even though there's more information than ever out there (which isn't to say it's all bad, the art that manages to overcome this and communicate something genuinely Other and Sublime with today's technology is almost unbearable to watch because goddamnit I wanna do that too), it's like availability tends to promote insularization, it's easier to tune out any conflicting signals. remember when you'd watch TV and whatever was on, was on? now my world is customizable and watertight and alterity comes in ice cream flavors

incidentally im gonna smoke a blunt and watch Enter the Void. late night NEET hours I guess. when the POV swoops up to the light/void right after he dies is something that only .0001% of what's getting made out there today touches

I've noticed some very interesting parallels between Crowley, Hegel, Land, and Evola that I'd like to share with you all, specifically concerning their metaphysics and their understanding of the human. AMA.

>>11159210
>there is no other. there's only you on the way back to a more interesting version of the same thing.

very well-put, life is the circuit of progression and return to the void. but as Mind - in human consciousness - this end is always qualified by the beginning and the journey undergone, because it could not not be qualified, /because/ there was someone "there" to experience it. see this is the thing with hegel: there's just this formal necessity for development and the content might as well be arbitrary. there will always be content as long as there is movement in Mind: there will always be a story to tell as long as there is that which tells stories (as Zizek puts it), there will always be something to see as long as there is a seer (relatively speaking, of course, at the absolute level, what is the seer seeing but his own existence infinitely adumbrated? there's a fichtean undertone there that I do not intend but oh well)

>this. so much this. and we think to ourselves, fuck yeah, romanticism! but the Outer Dark and so on really is pretty fucking wild. of course, *that's also you.*

yeah i'm pretty interested in land's love affair with alterity and the 0 and the non-knowledge beyond knowledge's limits, but a non-knowledge he always-already articulates within a language, of course. but also a language straining at its own constituve horizons. always these interesting coincidences of interiority and exteriority, transcendence and immanence. i think land, like all these anti-correlationists, like the mystics, they want to cut the circle of mediation any way they can. isn't that circle fundamentally samsara?

>the question about freedom remains. hegel's historical perspective on this is amazing.


y'know it really is, he says the same reality that convinces us of its necessity /necessarily/ must point to freedom. that is, this reality isn't denying us anything because everything we feel it is denying us is just as much a child of this reality. /because/ existence is dialectically closed (doomed to infinite self-mediation) /it is free/, because freedom is nothing but what is born in the /recognition of this closure/.

>every time we think, okay, that's it, it's over - that's exactly when it turns out *not* to be over and some Great Idea or Great Person arrives.

yeah and that's exactly it, the limit always-already overcome by our setting it down. i mean this is hegel's key insight: thought being able to think what it cannot think (as some noumenal x in the Beyond) must mean it is nothing but this self-positing and self-overcoming of limitation.

in this way hegel is something like a meta-philosopher, he is the only one to really articulate the process of philosophy as such, jettison his system and its contextual trappings and the truth is still the truth: whatever say after him and after capitalism will necessarily be a part of this process, it just won't thematise itself quite the same way as Hegel did