/lit/ - Literature

WAIT BLACK PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO READ?

>Proclus even states that terms like "Henad", "Intelligence", and "Soul" can be used to refer either to the self-subsistent gods the Unparticipated and Participated monads, which are complete in themselves; or to the "irradiations" or "images" of the former, which being incomplete require a substrate for their existence. Thus whereas some souls belong to themselves, others are dependent on their bodies, and are mere phantasms of souls

>tfw Proclus proves some people are more alive than others

just in awe of this gnosis lads

Books that renounce technological advancement and correlates it to cultural decay? More specifically the advent of the internet? Non-fiction and fiction welcomed.

Plato was right about everything. Matter is the contingent medium of expression for transcendent formative principles. Modern philosophy is debased and can't think the immaterial. The Good just is integrality of consciousness, self-possession. Platonic Gods just are what reconciles the "tree-ness" of a tree with empirical grit, because this unity is a presupposition of intelligibility. The Intellect is the First thinking the noumenality of its ground, soul is the elapsing of the circle as time. As the self individuates so does it intensify, theurgy is the communion of the soul with its movement towards its own Outside. Almost everything today is opposed towards verticality of consciousness. Distraction is dispersion. The Greeks were right about everything brothers. We're dying inside

>>11364717
It gets a bad rap because most nihilists are depressed edgelords who don't stop crying about how the universe has no meaning and are using the whole ideology as an excuse to be lazy

What is consciousness?

Is Hegel a mystic?

>In the third sense of the term “nothing,” Eckhart notes that “[s]eeing nothing, he saw God. The light that is God flows out and darkens every light…the Nothing was God.” [30] Here Eckhart makes a transition from the relation between creatures and God, to the relation of creatures to God. Using the mystical motifs of darkness and light, Eckhart follows in the Dionysian-apophatic tradition by describing a superlative form of darkness or nothing that goes beyond the dichotomies of light/dark, something/nothing. Here one moves from optical sight to mystical vision, from a metaphysics of being to a non-metaphysics of nothing or “the One.”

>ond preceding, must in a sense remain within its placeless providing. Thus since Non-being is the father of all that is, there is a sense in which the reditus (to non-being) precedes the exitus (to being).8 In other words, that which comes from the One ‘follows’ a (me)ontological return which ensures that its necessity does not infringe the simple, autarchical, supremacy of the One. This means that what emanates from the One, being, is not, in so far as to be is an inferior mode of existence compared to Non-being which is the only entity that really is (the really real). It is for this reason that Non-being can necessarily produce being without infringing simplicity, because to be is nothing. And as comparatively nothing, being does not actually escape the One, but remains immanent to it; being is in this sense an internal production. This is made possible by the protective negations which Plotinus employs at a methodological level throughout the Enneads.