/lit/ - Literature

>>18798772
>I don't understand this part. What does it mean and how is it found?
it is crafted individually from the void (or the undifferentiated plentitude, however one likes). I understand it as garment and an identity in the very real sense of the term. it is from the Bionicles universe. (I used it in a slightly different manner.) pov: ground/creative void throws at us different artifacts, phenomenal reality itself, the task is to build a certain machine (or machines) of vision that would be coherent (and fun as a fuck to be involved with) that would serve a particular language to navigate that which is. and that would be a real culture, not museum-like but real in the sense of practice of communication.
>Don't you think it's possible to acknowledge that the conflict between dualities forms a whole, without necessarily denying its multiplicity? Call it qualified monism.
hm, a tricky one. let's make examples.
(1) hardcore monism: there is only Allah (>PBUH) = there is only One One = pull towards its stillness/void = human creativity is dangerous to the regime of his power (also, don't want to make more multi-branched, but isn't it the filioque debate. that Light also comes from the filius/son, i.e. (potentially) ma.. >human being.)
(2) qualified monism: there are many Ones (spheres/bubbles of Sloterdijk) = sovereign/autogenic atmosphere of a bubble is maintained by creativity/life in dynamis (you must be active and creative to maintain and to live. that is your 'must') = push towards singularity which is fresh novelty; new cycle of purified substance.
I see these two versions of monism. which could be depicted as a pyramid (1); and a rhizome/network (2); number 2 is differentiation that leads towards a new sovereign One. the more sovereign-ones are within a network the stronger it is. unlike in a pyramid where alternative centers of power challenge its power regime.
>It is not a merging of the duality into a void, but an acknowledgement that the dual aspects, the poles, are creating a single narrative by interacting with each other.
yes, I agree (if I understand correctly) that conflict between poles is _natural_ and creating a charge/dynamis, so it's giving life.
at this point I am somewhat stuck in abstract speculations. what were we trying to clarify? .
>merely the recognition of the story's nature.
what is the story right now? is it not the time of post-narrative, post-historicity? even if so, how could be reintroduced? how could it step forth on the stage? how could it be? is there still imagination to imagine