/lit/ - Literature

>>11243867
thanks for the response. sorry also for interrupting another mysticism thread with my own tangents...but i think the answers to the questions i'm thinking about are usually found by mystic types in these threads.

>this constant machinic repetition of 'are we there yet' that is the mechanism of specularization you're talking about.

yeah. i think for me the idea would be, are *you* there yet? this is pretty much what i think describes the noblest goal of art inasmuch as it is simulation. did *you* get to that sort of kantian omega point? whatever it is that i/we make, solo or in studio, what is desired is a kind of proof of concept: our simulation coincided with your intimation of a supersensible unity. and in doing so something noncoincidental with itself is intimated, however evanescent.

if you can only simulate, you might as well simulate the ultimate. but you can't just simulate the ultimate head-on: you can only kind of lay out the staircase for the next guy. and maybe if that next guy cannot distinguish between the map and the territory, you've kind of passed an altogether different form of Turing Test.