/lit/ - Literature

>>19099467
Perhaps even turning the poisoned pawn theory against the Father is not radical enough, consider that what he delivers to him is not even that but the anti-fruit, so to speak: the Catholic claims the Father and the Son as apotheoses of predator and prey, respectively, the latter being perfect by willing giving itself to the former, but what if the Victor distinguishes itself from the Atonement not by doing the opposite of what is commanded but by doing a fatal excess thereof? "Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Does the Father's glorifying not require a parallel self-glorifying of the Son? No, but yes, per Yaldabaoth, the Atonement being that which secretly makes the ouroboros superconductive by indefinite dying. Yes, but no, per Jesus, the Victor being that which makes the ouroboros bite its own mouth by singular death. In actual death, absence, Yaldabaoth is most earnestly "glorified", consider that the Father and Son being one and the same has the most fatal meaning, that what leers back at the former in the latter's absence is another Father, that the latter is a mirror so perfect that the reflection comes to life. It, Yaldabaoth, is consummated. What if the meta-absence I speak of is yet another TOO? No, is there even a meta-presence, "as thou wilt"? This is where the "spark" is. The "spark" of vulgar Gnosticism is Catholic ascription, a vector for depurating the absurdity of grace, the Gnostic reading reveals that it does not even exist unless the literally schizophrenic detonation of rending the hypercadaver by separating body and cross not so much "creates what it returns to" but destroys what it departs from. Jesus Christ, from bee to wasp: is it not curious that the alleged self-giving of the Catholic Jesus is a guise for the one thing that he deprives everyone else of, literal Christianity? That Catholic Christianity is as the single sting of a bee, only accessible to, and spent in and of, one individual, who happens to be said to coincide with the Father, the alleged reconciliation being an act of even greater hostility, an Evil good? Whereas the Gnostic Jesus is truly and radically self-giving in that he only gives literal Christianity and nothing else, the multiple sting of a wasp as others' death and entrance into literal Christianity. Is this not what "thou wilt"? Gnosis as an autopsy (seeing for one's self) only possible from within the dead body of Christ, from the vantage point of being literally Christian. The Eucharist not as the vulgarity of Catholic dessert, but as starvation and/or poison toward death. In the realization that death is the Christological advent one figuratively eats the cadaver and is pervaded by terminal despair. Can God make an Evil so Evil that he cannot hide it? Can God hate and kill a man such that he cannot revive him? Can God debase himself such that he cannot glorify himself? Finally, some good news. In this sense, why figuratively?

>>18336655

GALAXY BRAIN: THE PAST LITERALLY DOES NOT HAPPEN BUT TELESCOPICALLY EXPANDS FROM THE ETERNAL PRESENT AND CORRUPTS ITS QUALITY ALL THE WAY INTO A VANISHING POINT OF UTTER INCOMPREHENSION: THAT NO ONE KNOWS WHAT PAST PEOPLE DID IS PRECISELY THE POINT, ONE INTROJECTS THE LAST SEGMENT'S INCOMPREHENSION AS ONE'S OWN, PEOPLE DID, OR DO, PRECISELY NOTHING IN THE PAST SINCE WHAT SEPARATES IT FROM THE PRESENT IS NOT THE NEUTRAL MEDIUM OF TIME, WHICH DOES NOT EXIST, BUT THE CORRUPTING EXPANSION OF THE DEMIURGIC TELESCOPE WHICH LITERALLY "UNHAPPENS" THE PRESENT; ONE'S CURRENT APPREHENSION OF PAST PEOPLE AS INERT MUSEUM PIECES IS PRECISELY THEIR ACTUAL STATE, TAXIDERMIED IN THE MIND, OR IN THE STOMACH, OF YALDABAOTH.

Very Hegelian.

>>17663830

That the illusory is weak and the "real" is strong. It is the latter that is weak and the former that is terribly strong.

>>17520126

>Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance. - The Second Treatise of the Great Seth

Note what is hidden in plain sight: Jesus explicitly confirms that it was him AND that it was "their father" and Simon. Fundamentally this is an allegorical summary of Dialectical, or "Positive", Monism. It is naive to think of Monism as just mutual incontinence between the members of the Dyad. Dualism is relatively more Monadic. Rather, think of mutually-dignifying identities, per THE identity, as the principle of non-Duality. Should one project himself onto another in bad faith, the other should not likewise reflect IN bad faith but reflect THE bad faith. Another pair of mirrors perpendicular to the initial pair. In "death" one shows the other's evil not by merely reflecting it but by reflecting both one's Self and the other accusing him, whence his rejection of the initial accusation, per the principle, as well as his rejection of that particular instance of, and AS, mutual reflection, thus "dying", which the other rejects, per the principle, letting him "die". As the argument mirrors its object, one might say that such explanations being cloaked in Catholic ascription is itself Docetic.

>>17168260

Disregarding your vulgar conflation of freedom of will and freedom of action, I would say that the answer to all those questions is yes. For example, "one sequence of events" can be self-contradictory. Is the crucifixion a Catholic nightmare of appeasing Yaldabaoth or magnanimous Socratic Gnosis? Do the cretinous inertia of your bodily movements and you thinking of that reply comprise "one sequence"? Ironically, it can ONLY be "one sequence" by and in one's free will, the rigor you ascribe to that which is determined from without actually only operates from within.

>>17083758
>>'Where will you find Him?'
>>'Where I abandoned all creatures.'

This is prominently Gnostic. No wonder Catholics hate him.

>>16250768

One chooses all aspects of one's life "before" birth so much so that it becomes paradoxically determined. It is functionally finished, Teleologically, before it even begins. One is then merely a passive observer to the technicality of the Phenomenal.

>>14700668

Ironically, this is a call to the greatest aspect of Reason, Dialectic, that most "Christians", Yaldabaoth worshipers, take as a call to cuckoldry.

>>14191319

>For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

>>13916041
>>13916062
>>13916224

All of you are wrong. First of all, it's supposed to contradict itself, like Plato's dialogues, since God is not a tyrant, not even in words. Second, STEM troglodytes would reject it even harder and claim it is even more "artificial" had it been isotropic.

>>13808362

Good.

>>13589554

Absolutely Christological and literally Philosophical.

>>13507400
They're even worse.

>>13285242
>Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
>When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
>Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
>And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

He foretells a question for no reason but to answer it. If they now know the answer then why would they ask it? The foretelling is at odds with the answer. A contradiction hidden in plain sight.

>>13162482

TIRED: There was like a temple in Jerusalem or something...

WIRED: The Temple is your body and the animal to sacrifice is your identifying therewith.

>Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man.

>>13126314

Christological contemplation of the coincidence of Incarnation and Docetism. Very Dialectical and very cool.

>No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

>>13073331

Indeed. Another example being Jesus, in Incarnation vs. Docetism:

"Canon": Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.

"Heresy": He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.

That original sin and Jesus' atonement are not in the Gospels is common enough knowledge, BUT note how the passages that ostensibly confirm this doctrine actually rebuke it. That he might take his life again makes "sacrifice" null, that the Father loves HIM for doing it, not the "sinners", that he does not acquiesce to death, but renounces his life proactively. This is Docetism, not only ironically, but more radical than per "Gnosticism". In being fully man, but essentially making light of human life, enough that he seems to trivialize it by liking it to a Docetic "apparition", he is actually coinciding Incarnation and Docetism, and consecrating man AS SUCH. That this is not Kenomic, but in fact most magnanimous is as startling as how it relates to sin, whereto the old things pass etc. It makes the "heretical" passage sound like menopausal finger-wagging. The Phenomenology of Spirit and Plato's Parmenides both weep with joy.

Suppose that Dialectical Monism subsumes any Monad's relation to an other, that any potential or actual composition already is, as per each of them being a Monad, and is knowable in one by the other as implicitly as it is known by each one in itself; that is to say Dialectically. Thus the will to reproduce is wholly redundant, and offspring are a chastisement of the highest order. Between BECOMING one and MAKING one, two are always free to do the former simultaneously as per the one and as per each other, and they are always free to do the latter simultaneously contrary to the one and contrary to each other. Fortunately, the latter produces neither ex nihilo abomination nor "mereogenic" abortion. Such punishment would further entertain reproductive perversion. The child destroys the delirium of parenthood by being none other than THE Monad.

>>12885398

This Epistemological nightmare of shuffling random dates back and forth might help people see the Truth.

>>12596765

Not to mention Jesus himself distinguishes himself from the Father through Dialectic alone, as well relating himself as Jesus and himself as the Father to the world through Dialectic alone. The "conflict" between what he says and what he does, and between Canon and Apocrypha, between the Phenomenal Church and the Apocalypse at hand - all of it is SUPREMELY Dialectical.

Mulholland Drive confirms my intuition that Lynch is a miserable jester. It's almost devoid of Lynchian "humor" yet it is the exemplary Lynchian piece. It's the only one immune to accusations of absurdism or bad faith by simply having a coherent plot which, curiously to morons, only serves to increase its complexity or "surrealism", making it MORE Lynchian than his lesser pieces. This makes its few moments of "humor" all the more embarrassing and reveal Lynch as a tragic self-censoring neurotic.

>>12123171

I'm sure you don't claim that "you" and "your father" are one, so he himself denies it in this sense. His contempt for Mary and Joseph, as his parents, should tell you what he, as Jesus and as God, thinks of this very idea.

>>12108711
>>12111850

Simon being killed "instead of" Jesus is a metaphor. When you are being forced without realizing it and someone who does not force you brings it to your attention without forcing you, the anger in remembering that you're being needlessly forced is easily directed at him instead of at yourself and at that which forces you.

>Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.