/lit/ - Literature

>>20450344
Here's a scenario: you open up /lit/. The catalog consists of multiple threads unrelated to literature. After some investigation, you find it puzzling there are no jannies present on the scene, nor was there any board culture or community engagement remaining. What had happened?

I can't enjoy literature written in the third person. What is my problem?

>>20439230
Wonder if I could set up GPT-3 or AI to chat with

To make it feed my writing/journal ideas back to me and generate similar ideas in a closed loop

>>20435754
Unfortunately yeah, and most people either don't want to listen or they don't understand the errors they're making

Then it gets frustrating because you see the same logical/categorical errors over and over and wonder why humanity is so stupid

I was responsible for the Hindenburg disaster and the guilt has been eating away at me for the past 85 years.
I never should have opened that flame. But what did I know? In a way I was forced to do it.

>>20416061
I have that same thought too. There's just so much I missed out on. I permanently damaged myself, and never built up any meaningful skills or habits. "Degenerate" is often used to describe freak fetishists but I think it also applies to my situation despite my vanilla sexual tastes - I'm just a degenerated human, a subhuman. I can't do anything productive. I should've killed myself a long time ago.

>>20408104
It's not that black and white. Science tells us (so far) it's probabilistic, meaning we have free will sometimes. Other times, it's pre-determined in the way of downward causality (your brain fires neurons and you experience the reaction)

It's not a binary true or false situation though. There's a middle ground, that's what chaos theory, complex systems and quantum mechanics deal with

>The Old Testament God is a personification of the superego, or the underlying symbolic order known as "The Name of the Father"

>The crucial point is that, in contrast to the primordial father endowed by a knowledge about jouissance, this uncompromising God is that He says "No!" to jouissance as Lacan puts it, this God is possessed by a ferocious ignorance ("la féroce ignorance de Yahvé"), by an attitude of "I refuse to know, I do not want to hear, anything about your dirty and secret ways of jouissance"; a God who banishes the universe of traditional sexualized wisdom, a universe with still a semblance of an ultimate harmony between the big Other (the symbolic order) and jouissance, and the notion of a macrocosm regulated by some underlying sexual tension of male and female "principles" (yin and yang, Light and Darkness, Earth and Heaven...).

>This God is the proto-existentialist God whose existence to apply anachronistically Sartre's definition of man does not simply coincide with his essence (as with the Medieval God of St. Aquinas), but precedes it.

>Thus, He speaks in tautologies not only concerning his own quidditas ("I am what I am"), but also and above all in what concerns logos, the reasons for what He is doing, or, more precisely, for his injunctions (what He asks or prohibits us to do); His inexorable orders are ultimately grounded in "It is like this BECAUSE I SAY IT IS LIKE THIS!". In short, this is the God of pure Will, of its capricious abyss which lies beyond any global rational order of logos, a God who does not have to account for anything he does.

I'm stuck in a past that I can't fix. I'm so full of regrets and mistakes and I can't move forwards because of it. The worst part is that I'm not even that old. Yet I want to go back in time and just make sure I don't fuck up as bad as I did. Even more mistakes have been made in the time that I have been wishing to go back. It's a slog to get my head out of the days that have gone by - my thoughts are all preoccupied with an idealized past that I've never lived. I don't know how to change my focus to the present so I can avoid making more wrongs that will be righted in my imagination. I could live a joyful life despite my regretful past, and yet I don't. I only turn my regretful present into a regretful past.

>Deleuze and Guattari argue that Richard Lindner's painting "Boy with Machine" (1954) demonstrates the schizoanalytic thesis of the primacy of desire's social investments over its familial ones: "the turgid little boy has already plugged a desiring-machine into a social machine, short-circuiting the parents."

>>20240529
And also, take a look at the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Your reality is determined by the boundaries of your language.

>Žižek (1989: 11), reading of Lacan, is Marx invented the notion of Freudian symptom comedy fetishism, in that the world of commodities produces symptom of dreams, hysterical phenomena, and so on. The secret of cocmoidy is the hidden depth of fetishism. Žižek takes this into a pansexualism of Freudian approach to dreams, and how unconscious desire is at work. The implication is unconscious sexual desire (fetishistic inversion) is at work in unconsciousness of the commodity-form of the political economy (Žižek, 1989: 16). The “real abstraction” is not in the sense of the real properties of commodities as material objects, or use-values (form, colour, taste), or material object of money in consciousness, but rather in the symbolic order of unconsciousness (“Mother has not got a phallus”, “money as a ‘pre-phasic’, ‘anal’ object”) (Žižek, 1989: 18).

>Neo-Catholicism