/lit/ - Literature

>>10642674
>Honestly if that's true I think you should try to articulate some his thoughts.
I can, but he does cover a pretty broad range, and most of my articulation will just be putting what he says into simpler, though less information dense words. For a few topics I could give more generalization, sacrificing information in the process.
>There's a number of signs that correlate with reactive thoughts: for instance the fact that he is ugly
Mocknecks are coming back in style, just you wait. ;)
>that he has a shtick against the Jews
Perhaps the Jews had a shtick against the other tribes they were by, and that type of thinking never left them?
>Zionists are powerful, or at least have a reputation as being powerful, so he hates them
He does not hate power, he opposes the sub-optimal use of power; naturally you likely believe that all uses of power by the powerful are justified, whereas he disagrees, and would refuse power if it meant that he would have to use it in the same way those with power currently are using it.
>Disliking strong, successful things is a good indictator of reactive thinking
If he does not value what the society values then he will not view them as strong or successful.
>The big thing is how he seems to hate modern society, which is a huge fucking chunk of reality.
Is it wrong to oppose society? Is it wrong to say that things should be drastically different? It's like you're saying that he has to value what society values, otherwise he's a failed individual. Not every society ever has held the values our current one holds, and people can consider those societies superior to our current one.
>All reactive thinking is unhealthy...
Most of his writing is about how someone should act in this world.
>which to say the big God, Sophia
"the big God" and "Sophia" are not the same being; the latter, wisdom, is the conduit to the former; the rest of that paragraph is either incoherent, or far removed from what he has actually written.
>This interpretation...
Read and put into practice the aphorisms in pic related if you think that he has no focus on personal psychology and personal spiritual reality. Analyze his ideas and see if he is correct about the relationship between the "imaginal self," "conscious self," and "unconscious self." These ideas have been covered before by other thinkers, but this is a far more concise presentation with observations one can perform on the self.
>His focus on 'dispersion'
He uses "disperses" in one aphorism and "dispreads" twice in one aphorism. I do not think he is focused on this concept.
>aphorism #55
I do not find it depressing. I am attached to my parents and relatives not by choice. He remembers the power struggle by his parents, and the defiance he held towards them, see aphorism 57.
>He wants to die
Only if he dies the hero's death
>psychologically disconnect...
not sure where you got that; he wants to be a hero, not "folded into a greater whole"
>He's got his hopes
Faith, not hope, aphorism 188