/lit/ - Literature

>crawl out of bed around noon
>make myself coffee and eat some fruit and or bread or something
>shower
>spend my afternoon generally strolling around town or nature, reading and drifting around online, household stuff when needed
>apéritif
>cook and eat large dinner paired with beer or wine
>coffee and/or digestif
>perhaps smoke cigarette/cigar/pipe depending on mood and circumstance
>watch something entertaining, internet
>drinks etc
>frivolity of the early night tends to turn more curious and interested as the night goes on
>usually spend between 3 and 6 in the morning reading and musing
>sometimes jot something down when I can't help it
>go to bed when the sun is coming up
>repeat

Once every few months I visit friends.

>>3698488
More like delicious depraved, drinking knave.

>>3549775
I've read the Gospels, some OT, parts of the Taoist classics, some Buddhist sutras and some Hindu stuff (parts of Yoga sutras, Upanishads). A lot of it felt too fruitless without proper context though, so I guess I need to read more secondary literature. I'm mostly interested in fringe groups of most religions in the 'crazy wisdom' corner, like fools for christ and dervishes and aghori sadhus and taoist sages and zen folk and the like.

>>3527652
I'm deliberately unemployed for life.

I don't think I want to be a writer in the proper sense, but I do have some ideas I want to work out and will send out some manuscripts if it every gets that far. Being on the dole is the next best thing after being independently wealthy as far as being a writer goes though.

My favourite book changes a lot, and often I don't really have one, like now. I don't really have any hobbies either. I just like to sleep and eat meals and sit around thinking or reading or writing and maybe wander around for a bit looking at things and sometimes participating in them, living a life of quiet contentedness like a half materialised ghost in frantic surroundings with no real purpose or activity. I never really understood 'doing' things. but I'm quite happy experiencing them.

>>2445781
Depends on the mood. Mostly refreshing my knowledge and/or practice of ways of thought in which absurdity isn't an issue. Classical Cynicism comes to mind. But so does Stirnerism.

Or even Sadean Libertinism. The nice thing about hardline hedonism is that the absurd doesn't bother you, since your on a quest for pleasure, not for knowledge.

>>2355443
Some scientist might say that once upon a time there where some monkeys who's brain developed to solve all kinds of problems in a more efficient way than other animals, for example how to catch a deer or defend themselves or procreate.

Then they proceeded to torture themselves by utilizing this device for acquiring food and security and sexual intercourse for things far more complex than those problems, and were in a way trying to drink up the ocean through a straw.

>>2348142
>>2348146

1/2

A parasite is a non mutual relationship between two entities in which one of them profits. The Spartans, for example, were parasites. They worked on themselves but enslaved the rest of the population of their conquered land to provide them with the necessary provisions.

Beside their lack of positive input in this relationship, parasites are perfectly capable of creating and perfecting themselves to their own fancy. They dedicate themselves to high goals. Do you think Michelangelo was concerned with the people baking his bread while he was painting? Do you think Plato was concerned with the slaves working on the fields while he was thinking and eating some olives at his leisure?

All higher endeavors require the delegating of banalities. Therefore all ways of life, all culture that is superior to that of the farmer and the worker must in some way be parasitic. It must be one way traffic, because the idle philosopher can eat the farmer's bread, but the farmer can not comprehend the fruits of the philosophers thought.

In this way, the 'parasite' doesn't work in the sense of labor. He however does exert himself to his succeed in his goals. This is an important difference. Calling such endeavors 'work' is a nasty habit of recent times where everything is seen through the eyes of common laborers. An aristocrat of olden days who would write passionately every day would not dream of calling it work. That would be an insult to both himself and his art.