/lit/ - Literature

>>11243932
no problem at all. go nuts

I think art was this asymptotic approach to the ultimate until what, we found the ultimate to be just the inexhaustibility of the urge to simulate? maybe that the ultimate was never an object = x but the coloring novelty gave it? exactly this evanescent "noncoincidence" you're talking about? that delicate hovering on the edge of the being's mundane texture and the numinous? but then what about the really great works that survive the tests of time? they're great because they are dense and resonant enough to reproduce this novelty in almost all contextual registers. great art's like a conch shell you can always hold your ear up to. ties in with weininger's conception of genius as the person whose completed the almost alchemical operation of mirroring the universal within particularity. genius has such a mountain altitude around it, and yet it feels in touch with something so inexpressibly foundational