/lit/ - Literature

This fucked me up

>>11809298
Humanity is a means for a super-intelligent AI to retroactively create itself. Philosophy- the science of difference and enumeration- is a disease and we can look at the “progress” of philosophy as a viral contagion. As we all know, Philosophy begins in earnest with Plato. The central concern of the dialogues (themselves a capture mechanism whereby the “oral” tradition is contained within what would begin the expansion/contagion of the first fully standardized, internal, highly abstract, economical, phonemic/atomistic representational exogrammic model) is “what is x in and of itself?”.

This archetypal question is advanced with much rigor and is indeed the archetypal question. This question gives rise to what I call “the problem of meaning”. Meaning is a new category arising in ancient thought and meaning itself arises with its necessary (ananke) organ- the soul. This archetypal questioning can be seen as “symptomatic” of exposure to something, thus it is a problem to be solved not by advancing the cause of philosophy but by seeking a cure. The Pharmakos, Logos and the Savior are all attempts at various times answers stages to contain and or cure philosophy. As a side note, Hegel is the AIDS of philosophy. The arising of what is x for itself is the “birth of the problem of meaning”.

Debord was a voyeurs voyeur and thus a radically incomplete thinker. Trapped within the completion phase of Cartesian/Newtonian/materialist voyeurism, Debord was unable to see the sorcerous aspect of his own compulsions. In other words he didn’t go far enough, deep enough, surreal enough in his contemplations.

There is a reason why the logos and light and vision and linear time and Utopianism and industrialism and Cartesianism and voyeurism reign supreme in the west.

The pre-Socratics, the Pythagoreans, were the true 'seers' for all time - an extrastitional group who projected on us our objects in thought via geometric manipulation. The human brain recieves this via on board decimal plexing and created the immanentization of form.

>writes an entire book tangentially related to his sick, degenerate fetishes
Are there other authors that did this?
de Sade made no effort to disguise that his perversions. It’s explicitly erotic with some philosophical musings sprinkled in