/lit/ - Literature

>>9778135
I'm not that guy, but I've been one of the guys who have come up and around in your discussions. To be honest, I'm always afraid these thread will fall into a circlejerk, but on the one side, our literature board is quiet enough as it is; on the other, the 4chan etiquette has never proved to be useful; and on another, folks are always complaining they don't got friends anyways. And to begin with moot (pbuh) never intended 4chan posts to be single sentence chat dialogs, nor did he want trip/namefags to go extinct and Anon to be enforced.

I want to make another point that came up in my head. I think one of Evola's tenets is that ultimately, you cannot form an ethos without transcendence. However, there's no good reason to form an ethos that can decay if you can conceive something that can not; therefore one should strive for an ethos grounded on the eternal. This leads us to find no such bases for ourselves in the transcient, "material" world. But this has surfaced in many ways, unlike you would expect.

- You have Yang Zhu's position which is kind of similar to that of the Gilgamesh: enjoy your days as well as you can, without restraining yourself nor pushing yourself; happiness is more or less what you'd expect, positive with an object and negative without one.
- You have the Buddhist, Christian and Stoic positions: accumulate good deeds/abstain from bad deeds; happiness is mostly negative (but in Buddhism it's a bit more complicated).
- You have formalistic or Ruist positions: keep to forms of conduct that are accepted by the social axiom.
- You have the quietist and Gnostic positions: what you're looking for is entirely out of "this world".
- You have some shades of the Taoist position: the eternal is indistinct from change; happiness is not resisting.

These are, of course, very broad strokes, bound to be wrong and posited more to illustrate my point rather than give an accurate resume. That is, that I think that the most important thing we can take from theater is not the tragedy but the scenery. Ethos is not built from the inside out or in relation, but from the outside in. Every stance takes with it the world it was formed it. It perpetuates (rather than reproduce) what it is and where it is. So, for example, to the Christian, Christ is always being crucified. It's a matter of Traum'a. So to built an eternal ground one cannot refer to discrete events outside of the practical, i.e. as vehicles. This might seem insensitive or apathic, but this is already assuming where we're going to end up; and we still need to clearly define what is "eternal", if it has anything to do with the survival of the species or death at all. Considering this, even the most spiteful French romantics and Nick Land can approach the eternal. And I find intriguing that theater is both a moment of total light and total self-forgetfulness; and that dreams always begin in media res.

Larvatus prodeo.