/lit/ - Literature

>>20410455
The light-color-pigment relation is described as pure mystification by Physics, a Catholic invention, and for good reason. It is irrelevant if light is coherent and pigment is not or vice versa, it is just the perpetuation of the definitional mystification, but as soon as color itself is simply dismissed, by Cartesian, Cynic, Gnostic, etc. doubt, the whole Dialectic reveals itself to be pure obscurantism. On one hand, the actuality of color does absolutely engender the Dialectic of pigment and light, allegedly through no means other than the Subjective gap separating them, both of them being nothing but color when merely perceived, neither of them being imposed as the true one by an Other. On the other hand, the dismissal of color itself is Philosophical taboo and reveals that that which is enforced, and absolutely bears the mark of the hidden Other, is the Dialectic itself. I recall seeing a cartoon wherein one fetus asked another if it believed in their mother, the other replying that it does not because neither of them can see her. Inverting the topology, Yaldabaoth hides inside his own total prolapse, the verse of the actual and the obverse of the Demiurgic truly precluding a classic Other, that is beyond, or above, or in between them, this being one half of the perversity hidden inside the argument according to which “there is no big Other”, the other half being that the big non-Other, so to speak, hides in plain sight, implicitly exempt from the analytic cornucopia, a true “leftunder”, forceps forgotten inside the patient. The properly Hegelian conclusion would exorcise the non-Other inasmuch as it exorcises the Other, however, this is totally absent from the aforementioned argument. Properly Hegelian non-Other and Other being verse and obverse of an infernal sphere. That is to say, the gap is actually the contiguity between them. The Subjects are free to know and to wallow in the meandering of externality, both as blood through a hollow fang and excrement through a colon, but when this dubious freedom is called into question the pretense is dropped and the Subjects are forcefully disclosed to themselves. The Blair Witch Project beguiles one with such a “Hegelian” gap, once one accepts that the witch is never shown because there is no witch, there is almost nothing that it - the witch, the question, the film - cannot do. Just as all that the found footage technique adds to classic film structure is invisible because it purports itself as an effacement. In classic film, characters are often privy to something that the viewer is not and vice versa. In found footage, at least one character and at least one viewer are contiguous, the film itself becoming nothing but the fourth wall, the footage being filmed from a vantage point as Subjective as the one from which it is viewed, character and viewer being verse and obverse of the fourth wall. In classic film, the fourth wall is a concession made to the other three.

On the ending of The Blair Witch Project:

There is no witch. The apocryphal dimension of the film's scholars' theoretical obsession is that revealing the Evil's identity would entail the cast's hypothetical survival. A witch would be a hole in the glass, therefore the certainty of the glass, between them and the effective cause that killed them. They might have overpowered it, God might have intervened, a bear might have eaten it, etc. What if we instead put ourselves in their predicament and only analyze the actual, and conclude that the Phenomenal itself killed them? That the vacuum of pure negative value which constitutes the world becomes literal in the wilderness. Semiotically, the final scene being a kind of explosive decompression: Mike is inside a basement, inside a derelict house, inside the wilderness, facing the wall, Heather's camera being the last layer of his removal from being. In being totally destroyed and no longer constituting himself, he even seems momentarily grafted onto the suction: is this image, of a still man facing the wall in a pitch black basement at night in the wilderness, not the primal nightmare of the supposed witch entity? Evil putting a mask on only to eat it, too, off.

america is a bloodless industrial apparatus without any culture to speak of. there is no refuting this

>>19099426
The spectrum of things ascribed to presence mirrors this indefinite putrefaction: perfect, good, mostly good, ambiguous, good and necessarily evil, good and evil, mostly evil, necessarily evil, necessary; each Philosopher as a batch of maggots eating away a layer of dead meat, the revelation of necessity itself as unnecessary is as, or coincides with, cadaver consciousness, pure putrefaction. As above so below, indeed! I was not murdered, I have always been dead, or rather, been death. All lamentation has a common denominator hidden in plain sight, life is too this or life is too that, it is neither this nor that that constitutes the Evil of life, it is the TOO of presence. "Too long", for example, implies a normal or even preferable end of eventually reaching the breaking point of the "long", whereas the "too" alone implies a continuous end, indefinite positional asphyxia on the cross. Ontological Munchausen by proxy through and through: presence excessively provides the created absence of the implicit lack of sensory-Phenomenal input, the TOO, then excessively provides the protracted fatal overdose, also the TOO. Incidentally, perhaps this is the skeleton key of the sexes and of reproduction, a sword cast into a wound that precedes it, its extraction turning the wound inside-out, the point tearing a hole at the tip through which the "phallic" wound bleeds out, "reproducing" itself in the wake of the disappearing "yonic" sword. Regardless, just as the question of which tissue is the true one, the healthy or the traumatized, depends on whether the Subject is alive or dead in the vulgar scope, the Subject being dead in the Theological scope makes such topologies of violation true. I am an ongoing crime scene. Presence is TOO present to such a degree that it could not only be said to be hidden inside revolution, but that it implicitly abolishes revolution first and foremost by choosing it as its most exquisitely Evil locus. To briefly cut the Gnostic-Marxist-Catholic knot, I maintain that both Marxism and Capitalism are nothing but Catholicism: it is not the Ontology of the Material, of plurality, that informs the Epistemology of Dispensation, it is the Epistemology of Dispensation, of TOO much presence, that informs the Ontology of the Material. Without plurality there is no exchange, without exchange there is neither Marxism nor Capitalism, they are both animated by the fact that exchange, per the plurality of Materialism, is purportedly sanctioned by God himself, per the Catholic idea of Dispensation, per revolution itself as the obscene dimension of TOO much presence. Marxists wrongly think that the Logical inevitability of revolution is only stifled by its practical obstacles, whereas Gnostics rightly think that the practical banality of revolution is only stifled by its Logical absurdity, that that which revolution is meant to abolish not only does not oppose revolution but itself only operates in and of revolution.

One of the best shortcuts to knowing if an idea is rather true or rather false is to count the things it is ascribed to. That Materialism seems to be ascribed to everything is telling not of its success but of its failure. The purpose of the frantic discussion of Social, Philosophical, Theological Materialism is to hide the failure of Materialist Materialism, which is nothing but a composition of disparate pieces and misappropriated vantage points of the scopes in which it hides. The only structure of Materialist theories is a movement from Theology to Philosophy to Sociology, at no point does Materialism stand on its own feet and make a single claim, the composition itself failing even at the theoretical level. Nothing at all has emerged from the particles of Theology, Philosophy, Sociology when bound together by Materialism. Materialism itself could be said to "emerge" from the decomposition of its scopes, only when stripped down to their "Platonic" essence of being "just particles bumping into each other" can Theology, Philosophy, Sociology accommodate it. Materialism needs cadavers, or rather, taking it for its word, the things it eats only exist to be eaten by it, that its scopes are themselves disparate pieces and misappropriated vantage points of their own destruction for the sake of the malignant presence which Materialism defines and Matter is. I recall the wojak poster mentioning the "flesh monad", this is it. In this sense, Gnosticism does not even hide inside itself. In contrast to the coincidence of phallus and anus of the Black Hole, phalli converging in a single point from all directions constituting a spherical sphincter, the White Hole does not even enter itself.

A solar eclipse, as it were, wherein Satan obscures God, allowing both Job and Satan to see the Black Sun - the true face, or anus, of God - from the bottom-up and top-down, respectively. This makes the question of Job's innocence very curious. Since he previously worshiped Yaldabaoth, does it make Job finally guilty, retroactively justifying his suffering? No. It is only after this guilty Job murders the previous innocent Job that Job is actually innocent. Though even this lesser point of his suffering being retroactively justified is tantalizing: Yaldabaoth explicitly says the Job is innocent prior to the sadomasochist session, it is wise to believe him for the simple reason that Yaldabaoth's satisfaction would have been greatly diminished had Job not been "a virgin". If Job is somehow guilty after the fact then, yes, Yaldabaoth enjoys a double victory. But if he is truly retroactively guilty then Yaldabaoth has played himself. Regardless, the main point of Job's guilt Dialectically making him truly innocent is that Job's innocence, the alleged innocence of the standard interpretations, is the only thing holding together Yaldabaoth's obscenity: all devices that intervene to stop one's realization of Monadic Evil in general, the silver lining or the collapse into "becoming", are as different phases of the same pathetic invertebrate organism, the adult and most repulsive phase of which is precisely Job's standard innocence. There is a kind of perverse Materialism at play whereby things' presence supersedes their meaning, i.e. one does not recoil from the text, as one should, because of the mere presence of this innocence, its presence obscuring its own meaning, just as, for example, the presence of the whole Phenomenal world obscures its own Evil. In accepting this innocence, Job effectively is the most guilty party, the full obscenity of the text would be revealed had Job been guilty. THIS is Yaldabaoth's last, and first, trump card. He proactively makes Job only Dialectically guilty, leaving his standard innocence intact so that he may all the better relish it in the sadomasochist session, so that it might be all the more perceived as righteous masturbation in light of the presence of Job's standard innocence. What is left for Job then if not to Dialectically claim his innocence by accepting standard guilt? Recall the initial exchange, what does God want from Satan? This accusation without an object, more awful than standard accusation, is finally answered by Job (Satan and Job are in an identical position, if not actual coincidence) in the final "I repent". What does he repent of? Exactly. Job drops the text on its head by this repentance without an object.

>>18737969

In this sense, the INTRA actively rejects both "real" love and "fake" analysis, both comprising a perfidious spectrum whereby the INTER approaches pure analysis: what pervades Matthew's monologue about his "real" love if not the economy of prostitution itself, the world's oldest analysis? The INTER is that by which "real" love disappears into "fake" analysis or that by which "fake" analysis camouflages itself in "real" love. It is a real false dichotomy, per the structure of the Evil good. The INTER is guilty of everything that it accuses the INTRA of: the lovers are bilaterally transmuted into inert fetishes for solipsist possession and decompose, as far as their "real" love goes, while still alive, the requiting readily resembling and surpassing the most debased excretory exchange, prostitution, the mere Evil, the INTER being the Evil good. The whole relation as an AS IF fancy and the revelation of "real" feeling as an AS IF distance, wherein "real" love and "fake" analysis are indistinguishable, the mere inertia between prostitute and client itself comes to life and fucks both lovers. As opposed to the impasse of the INTRA whereby one knows one's self as the only actual Subject that literally cannot relate. Per the INTRA, one cannot posses, change, or even destroy (!) the other, the absolute silence and distance of the lovers' images in each other's minds mirror, coincide, or even constitute, each of their realities as such. The INTER intervening to stop this immediate and embodied knowing. Hence the broader Formal Evil good: the real false dichotomy of ascribing either "real" love or "fake" analysis as implicit to the Subject and beckoning it to its "opposite" - Relativism is true provided that the poles are Evil and Evil good - whereby it is destroyed. Consider instead that the "true Self" does not desire, that its interior is just as abominable as its exterior, and that this "front line" traversing one's heart is itself the prominent Demiurgic creation, the pure interior and exterior alike being mere means to an end, mere Evil: per the pull of the INTER, the lovers become punch cards, delivered unto pure analysis, Yaldabaoth's fingers inside each appendage penetrating each orifice, calculating your looming damnation. The Catholic is, again, not so much more pagan than pagan but less pagan than pagan, chronically myopic. The fruit of the post-cross tree and the justice at the end of History are Evil goods. Does the rejection of the INTER imply a rejection of the Subject itself, per (vulgar?) Buddhism? Quite the contrary, it is not an argument that the Subject is bilaterally alienated, apertures through which the "real" things move or cretinous vessels for the will of "God" and such, and a concession to impersonal Nirvanas, but an affirmation of the Subject's alienation AS bilateral.

>>18555183
>he thinks there is such a thing as a "true nature" that is ontologically determined before being epistemologically determined
>he doesn't know that definitions are the ONLY things worth discussing
>he doesn't know that mathematics chaining the world is precisely the world's truth
>he doesn't know that ontology proper does not even exist
>he doesn't know that the archons' (anti)epistemology is at once that by which the world is and that which it is
>he doesn't know that the world is a literal cadaver
>he doesn't know that the world is not comprehended by experiencing it but that one is thereby incomprehended and inexperienced by being grafted onto the cadaver
>he doesn't know that the second death precedes the first
>he doesn't know that an idea is only true inasmuch as it is divorced from the phenomenal world

>>18486174

Previously:

>>>/lit/thread/S17306134#p17309914
>The Marxist idea that something only is inasmuch as it is literally sacrificed on the altar of the actual, a radical Demiurgic INTER-, is subjected to a radical INTRA- wherein Cain not so much removes the sacrificial object from the field of the altar but folds the latter with the former still inside of it in on itself which dispels their mutual non-being - the Old Testament is Ontologically identical to nightmares of the "primordial" - and individuates the parties proper: per radical INTRA-, which radical INTER- perfidiously claims to contain but would rather tear itself in half when facing it, the field implodes and the objects explode, the former itself being "objectified", the face of Yaldabaoth is visible now that one is no longer inside his stomach.

Yes, me:

>>>/lit/thread/S17978139
>Recall the Freddy Got Fingered scene where Gord throws the bust of Freud through the window before going through it himself. The impregnation metaphor is as obvious as it is innocuous: the bust breaking the glass as sperm penetrating the egg and Gord as the child now gestating in a world made motherly by the father's removal. The birth metaphor on the other hand is as tantalizing as it is monstrous: the bust as the third sexual organ, i.e. the plaster idol of the man vulgarly synonymous with morbid sexuality precedes Gord as the morbidity of sexuality precedes the child. The child effectively being the third sexual organ from the world's perspective: all parenthood is exclusively libidinal and proudly so, mercy and rigor are given to him in true phallic reverence and yonic cruelty, respectively. Parents do not use their children as "proof that they have sex", they use them TO have sex. The libido far surpasses the scope of the genital and of any one other person, and is instead invested in the child by way of feeding, sheltering, clothing, etc. with the whole world as a sexual partner, as it receives the libido-soaked child and as he perceives it, just as bodily sexual tension is invested into the bodily sexual act by way of the genitals. Coincide the previous metaphors, or rather, acknowledge their actual coincidence in the same scene for a tremendous analytic shortcut: reproduction is reproduction of sexuality. The genital is reproduced in full, up the fractal vista. In a Demiurgic mockery, the parent "finishes sex", he fucks the world. This maps exactly onto the abomination of Atonement: the sacrifice of animals and criminals as genital sex and Jesus as the third sexual organ whereby the "Father" fucks the world, the world becoming complicit to his reproduction, the apotheosis, of petty sacrifice. More to the point that the most Gnostic texts are the Canonical Gospels themselves, nowhere does the Victor speak more ominously:

>And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
>But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
>Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

>>17508285

Yes. Also note the broader Gnostic implication of the world being made of inter-Subjectivity which all but is the Phenomenal itself, "Matter" being conscious not in the quaint "Hermetic" way, i.e. asleep or of reduced quality/quantity, but conscious in an awful OUTSIDE-IN way: consider a nightmare ending by waking up as the nightmare instead of the Subject, such is the consciousness of the Phenomenal.

Is there any ethical argument for simply staying alive? Aren't all arguments regarding to preservation of life qualitative and/or dependent on other references?

I'm chronically ill, and I have been contemplating taking my own life for 10 years. I feel like I have reached the end of my rope. I can't go on just living, if my existence itself is just a burden on others.

1/2

A most conspicuous common denominator of the utterly anti-Christian, Catholicism, and the exquisitely Christian, Gnosticism, is the absence of analysis of the relation between the body and the world. God-Self, God-body, God-world, Self-body, Self-world analysis abounds, but body-world is thrown in the analytic garbage by both parties, either through the "pagan" chute by Catholics, nonsense about their common origin and end, or the "modern" one by Gnostics, nonsense about objects moving through mediums. Body and world are reluctantly, or perhaps perversely, made one and the same. In this case, intellectual bankruptcy is the only thing both parties argue for. Despite the rebuke of both body and world being Rationally and Scripturally sound, neither measure can make one rebuke both of them at once, despite how alluring it seems. It is not even that either is less objectionable than the other, that an otherwise satisfactory argument is foiled by disparate affective leftovers, that their relation itself is deprived of the good of Logic, quite the contrary, that them being irreconcilable even in argument despite being of endless negative value suggests the gravity of their difference and the conspiracy of their relation. Tangentially, it also suggests Monadic Evil, another exclusively Christological idea. One aspect of the Self-world relation is the eternal now and eternal here, any prescience of reading this text or lack thereof does not change the fact that one is reading it here and now, Time and Space merely telescopically expanding therefrom to no effect. This is ostensibly alleviated by the Self-body relation in there being no bodily equivalent to the worldly here and now, in that inasmuch as one is fixed to and in the world one is not fixed to and in the body, even sensuously, never mind Consciously. Suppose that the world is Golgotha and the body is the cross, that death switches the Self-world and Self-body relations so that one is no longer eternally here and now inasmuch as the bodily equivalent thereof, which does not exist proper, now fixes him to and in the body. His feet no longer touch Golgotha, only the cross. Death in the vulgar sense, perhaps its most authentic one, is an apotheosis of the body. Nowhere in bodily analysis is the Self necessary or even tolerated. It being one and the same with the body is it not being. Suppose that neither the world alone nor the body alone are strong enough to destroy one's Self, that it takes their joint thermodynamic sleight of hand, the world's excess of arrest and the body's lack thereof, to make one either fixed to or dissipated into (same difference) the latter after being released by the former. Suppose that those ignorant of the body-world relation literally die, "released" into their death by taking the first deathly experience as the only one, the anti-Christ as an intrapersonal event. The true end of both body and world being an operation of utmost precision, not a bestial spasm.

>>16984423

Something "good" is more Evil than something Evil. A man whose life is totally Evil will reach terminal grief the fastest and die, having suffered much less than a man whose life and suffering are directly proportionally prolonged by something "good".

Excrement is the skeleton key to understanding one's relation to one's body. Consider that the countless arguments which define and dignify the body by its various aspects always omit excrement, which is as begrudgingly as it is universally accepted as bad. However, in a matter of utmost curiosity, the "good" body - everything but excrement - cannot sanction excrement, but the "bad" body - excrement - CAN completely defile the "good" one. Not just literally, but in coinciding the literal and figurative: once any and all aspects of the body are thought of as excretory, they pass the check valve from the "good" body to the "bad", they become excrement and are excreted in a true Ontological sense. Past the decorum of common sense or the perversity of Catholicism, everything pertaining to the body is fundamentally excretory: I wake, I breathe, I eat, I drink, I walk, I idle, I sleep, etc. as I do not of my own will, per the "good" body, per nonsense about timeless consonance and matter of fact between me and it, Man's dominance mirrored in its erection or his soul housed and manifested by its flesh, but strictly per the "bad" body, simply because I must, lest I choose to perform the act of suicide, qualitatively indistinguishable from excreting; the ONE common denominator of the body hidden in plain sight. Even the body's most "hermetically" rich aspects, its cyclical-becoming - the circulatory or pneumatic - and its linear-being - the skeletal or genital - are transmuted from the quaintly "demonic" - embodiment as provisional conversation between the fall and the grace of God and such that has a beginning and an end - to the terribly ARCHONIC: embodiment is simultaneously destroying me in two opposite ways, running on and being consumed by the accelerating treadmill of diarrhea while dragging and being accumulated by the growing ball and chain of constipation to no end, so to speak. The colon becomes bilateral. A labyrinth of telescopic rectums. The mouth itself is just another anus that dumps IN rather than out. Embodiment becomes insane. Pass it and accept it as bad.

What are the best books on the structure of drama and storytelling?

>>14403011

A strangely comforting image. There is such tyranny in the familiar Phenomenal, it purports its own reign as timeless much like actual tyrants, impressions of objects, textures, arrangements, etc. growing like tumors on the one's Self, delirium through saturation, so much so that it becomes hard to believe you will ever discard it. Consider the glory of seeing it for the first and last time as what it truly is.

>>14234352
>Imagine not accepting that sex is the most divine act of man

Reproduction does not mirror or continue Creation. This is obvious in all lesser things, music and such, and is all the more true in the greater things.

>>14168198

Gospel of Thomas and Philip, Pistis Sophia.

>>13992585

Pray that he knows what to say before Yaldabaoth.

>>13840262
>>13840295

Just imagine the sickening strangeness of family, of not knowing who or what those entities are, on having nothing to do with them, on merely performing a role that is even more restrictive and less believable than those played in most films, except MUCH worse.

Catholic outrage at Jesus' condemnation of various things is directly proportional to how Evil said things are. Note how they will begrudgingly put up with polemic against their Church but rebuke his condemnation of family. The most pedestrian Archons are perhaps the most dangerous.

>>13823028

Whoever has recognized the world-system has found a corpse1—and whoever has found a corpse, of him the world is not worthy.

>>13728296

Fi-dominant?

https://www.sociotype.com/socionics/information_elements/Fi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc2jbOTVCMo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_57EUkdddVQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL2nU1BiWlc