/lit/ - Literature

WHITEHEAD'S GOD IS THE APPETITION OF SAMSARA: a void of potential's hunger for actuality, concretion, the eternal "evocation" and exhaustion of intensities, objective immortality as the fertilizer of cosmic epochs: as a concrescence I "prehend" the data of the past as the content of the immediacy of my present, in other words, there can be no subjective immediacy /now/ without that which is not subjective and which is not immediate in principle: the past is objectification. I'm never really reacting to another's behavior from the inside, but only as that behavior in an objective mode: feelings in Whitehead are the transition from the past to the subjectivity of the present: the present IS the subject: not a self-grounding cogito but a spatiotemporal continuum, and what that means is we must think the transcendental consciousness in Kant just as conditioned by a network of relations as everything else: a subject is simultaneously transcendent to and inextricable from the past to which it owes its being, the present is not whisked causa sui out of the aether, the present is nothing else but the continuous, novel re-constitution of the past, what is properly self-creating in the subject is not his consciousness but his particular prehensional calculus that continuously presupposes (and is presupposed by) the construction of his consciousness in time and AS time: when it goes, I go: death is the central axiom of relationality: insofar as processes are movements towards their own extinction, the "draining" of their immediacy is itself the condition of their being "taken up" by subsequent generations: objectification-as-death is the a priori condition of Indra's Net. ETERNAL OBJECTS ARE ARCHONS: there is first the movement towards some determination, and then there is its OCCASION in my interiority, my reflexive awareness of x AS x, but the more invisible this distinction becomes, the more I am identified with my aim towards this eternal object - indistinguishable, in other words, from this eternal object's aim /towards itself/: which is why at death the singularities I am pledged to re-absorb "me": PHILOSOPHY IS THE NEGATION OF VORTICES: this distinction is analogous to what David Clark calls the performative and constative distinction in language: the true dyad is the (internal) marking of the One /as/ One: to use Clark's very concrete example here: a declaration of independence enacts the very freedom it exists to officially recognize, in other words, it is the noncoincidence between the mark and the blank that it not only presupposes, but retroactively presupposes IT: the present is always the taking up of some past "form of definiteness" the immediacy of which is /the present itself/: Christ's cry on the Cross is in fact this performative distinction as it can only be deployed on the Cross, ie in the zero-point of suffering: the cry enacts the very (standard of) Love it itself grieves the absence of: God is the (self-)registration of the void.

:Whitehead's God is Kant's boyish charm rendered to the absolute of time's regenerative Oneness: It is in Leibnizean process that the God of process parasitizes the axiom of Vedic rendicism cosmologised as a post-cosmology: Within cosmic cosmism we see Plato's own Theory of Non-contradicton: A centrifuge of Time's own Kalian ontological tautology:

>>12418970
:For Land the accelerationist Telos is an ontology of God's ontological being: Whereas Moldbug's God is a Pathos against Time and its God, the prism of the future decelerates the present until we are thrown back into the thrusters of decommisioned externality paroxysm:

:Zizek's ideology is the communism of the Young Hegelians' lumbar support cosmotechnics: In Althusser, the Spirit of the idea becomes the idea of its own time-change God: For Zizek, God's spirit becomes the atheism of its own idea, which is the idea of the tautological Time-tree's Pathos within cosmic cosmism's Logos-Oneness:

>>12410535
:Kaur imagines Dickinson's time as the estuarean tautology of a Goddess in Derridean Logos: The simple appears as God's condo of becoming:

>>12415646
:Pinker is the eau de /industrial cleaner/ used as a sterilizing agent for a /Nietzschean divine/ violence injection machine acclimated to an /axiology of Hume's/ cosmology device:

>>12413993
:For Sartre Nothingness is the /cataract/ of /God's/ amblyopia of /being/:

:SHNIFF: Zizek is the categorical form of the god-void-machineshs becomingnessh dishasshembled from the treadmill of Gilgameshsh in a vivisshection treatment fascility :CROAK: Petershon runsh the gauntlet of the Hero'sh Journey but in represshed time as a perplexing REALLY DARK PLACE of Erashmus Mahakala on a tilt-a-whirl become eranean concubescence :SHNIFF: For Zizek and Peterson Nietzschean post-godform ontologishm asshembles itsh own Jungean shpaceship earth within the endogadget nano-individual :CROAK: The clean room with a twisht is the absholute recoil of Freud weathered cryogenically and impaled by materialishm's own two-hot-dogsh-in-one-hand-and-doshtoevsky-in-the-other ketogenic Bakashurean fasct-feasht :SHNIFF: REALLY DARK STUFF that would make Shtalin blush like the posht-shtructuralisht neo-marxisht he really was before retroactive ratcheting wash made posshible by shpyrophoric Chronosh/Kali distilled in a Google Home Mini :CROAK: Burgertime meets Fortnite now in the Oval Office with Freud ashking of the Void if Lacan might have reacted differently to a water attack if he were shimply a head in a vat :SHNIFF: The Carteshian shpectacle of one hundred million dead is the vasht shea of life-shushtaining-plascebo-liquid not achieving its oneness in Hegel'ssh sceleshtial coshmology of a negational audienche :CROAK: And which we all really are, as Cheshterton'sh poodle imagined of the ChyberShinto aeshtheticsh :SHNIFF: Chrisht as Atheisht becomesh the archetype of archetypical becoming, with a twishted Sholzhenitshyn on trial before Bane and the algorithmsh of an iRobot which can never clean enough :CROAK: The archangel of cleanlinessh meets the vacuum-bag Manjushriean-Unhcegilaeanism of Hygieia :SHNIFF: For Harrish and Shapiro the shpectacle is the fibre-optic onenessh of a lobster and dekulakishation become One :CROAK: For the esceleb god fascism is no jokeman, but neither ish communishm, and sho on and sho on :SHNIFF:

>>12414153
The categorical imperative is the Achillean heel turned as post-ontological bildungsromanised volksgemeinschaft: prefigured by a Xerxes now in the Constantinople of the void: which is a capital-form kitchen display of the sky in Berkeley's unbecoming of billboard-waxed Crypto-Pseudo Procluseanistisminism. And that's a good thing.

KANTIANISM IS THE PARASITISM OF THE BRAIN STEM: Whitehead's God is the eternally novel (re-)appropriation of its own processual content, Whitehead deprograms the Kantian mindvirus with the fallacy of simple location: that we cannot imagine distinct, spatially isolated entities means we are more nested in our spatiotemporal bed than the transcendental allows, time and space are not the subject's forms of auto-affection, the subject is the auto-affectivity of space and time: Kant and Descartes make the mistake of reifying apodictic certainty as a kind of ontological autopoiesis: in other words consciousness is not fundamental, or transcendentally grounded, the only real entities are in fact the agential voids produced by "concrescent" unities: NOVELTY HAS PRIORITY OVER COGNITION: Whitehead applies the heap paradox to Platonic form, thereby temporalizing it: fuzzy logic is only possible as /differentiation in realtime/, the subject does not have total synthetic power over sense-data, there is something appearances provide precisely in virtue of the fact they are appearances: essence is tautological, redoubled into itself as that virtual = x that emerges as the cut between a person's empirical self and their "vibe", energy, mode of determination, infinitely articulated within a finite bound: processes are the duration of their own finitude: time is impossible without the iteration - and extinction - of identities, the immortality of an idea is its living spontaneity fossilized by duration, the condition of its (un-)life in the symbolic economy: Spirit is not simple differentiation, but the /differentiation of series of differentiation/: robots are alive, but not conscious, the same with stars: consciousness is one term in a /heterogenous/ series: subjects are still just relational nuclei or "drops" of coherence, formal unities that /precede apperceptive unity/: I am not the transcendental subject, but a /subjectivized positionality/: actual entities are a nexus of relations "concresced" around a pranic fusion core: a drop of self-activating, self-creating energy: gods are these cores swollen to ultraviolet: Spirit is what distends the TIMELESS ANNULARITY OF ORGANIC DRIVES INTO SERIALIZED THOUGHT. In Plotinus time is consubstantial with the consciousness of the soul: in other words man's being is a /deviant/ time, a corruption of the Logos' pure time in Eriugena: actual entities can only experience time as the selection/rejection of modes of definiteness, the transtemporal patterns of processes that themselves ingress into immanent becoming /of what they are/: a void energized by eternal objects, vortices/singularities of determinations, the ancestral stock, archons and gods alive.

KANT IS URIZEN: Kant is right that the isomorphism between thought and the external world is really just thought's isomorphism with itself - where he's wrong is his assuming that this correspondence somehow /generates itself/ - produces space and time as correlates/preconditions of its own synthetic dynamo - instead of /being generated/ by those same spatiotemporal conditions: DELEUZIAN AION AS DEMIURGIC FLYTRAP: Kant's cogito transpires in/as the determinable form of time, in other words, the "I" can only occur to itself as its own other: the "I" does not "take up" time to represent itself to itself, the key point is precisely: self-representation /is/ time: the only way an organism can represent its activity to itself is through the passive form of temporality, through a coherent flow of experience, the a priori integrity of which the organism (wrongly) subjectivizes as a self-subsistent ego: /time is qualitative change/, nature's positive self-identity short-circuited (but not totally abolished) by (illusory) MOVEMENT: Zeno's paradox isn't simply about the immanent impossibility of language to describe finite movement, but rather, movement revealing impossibility AS language, as language's power to continuously elaborate (but never consummate) the finite whole of which it is the self-description, or more radically: LANGUAGE'S POWER TO RENDER ITS OWN ACTIVITY INTERMINABLE: AS DEATH DRIVE. Just as I can't actually perceive the end of perception as I'm falling asleep, and just as I can't actually measure the distance between Achilles and the tortoise when they're neck-and-neck, so language cannot say its Limit without always-already displacing that Limit beyond the /very matrix of enunciation it utilizes to do so/: language is the internal articulation of a Beyond it must posit to deploy itself /as language/. In other words, it isn't movement per se that is paradoxical, but /time as the measurement of a continuity presupposed by measurement/. To recapitulate: time and space /do/ exist outside the subject, Kant is wrong, because remember, even he admits intelligibility and apperception must coemerge: what /is/ unique to the human, to coin a somewhat clumsy term, is its /apperceptivization/ of space and time, its elongation of point-like phenomena into the line of experience, the subordination of difference to a formal self-consistency from which difference can never extricate itself: how can there be movement without time? Easy, Chaos: movement without memory, without differentiation, ie without a /that which is differentiated/, precisely because it is a /ground of differentiation which creates time/: YALDABAOTH AS THE PREFRONTAL LOBE: a unified consciousness produces a standard of ontological permanence that nothing in this universe can hope to match, and so is responsible for suffering and the cognizance of death: dukkha is subjectivity.

LONELINESS IS A CENTRIFUGE: art, genius, is the puncturing of immanence(s), that's why inspiration sometimes phases into bacchanal, the madness of an Outside: capitalism arrests the Dionysian instinct with the infantilizing vortex of pop culture, nerd culture is dysgenic, cinema is the depiction of /deliberate/ time: films are the elision of boredom, emptiness, but the womb of genius is vacuum, stimulation is de-individuating because only solitude can be the rehearsal for death, our 20s are now a kind of post-adolescence: social media prefigures the cybernetic emancipation of the cogito, bodies colonized by the virtual so that we might know the frictionless gliding of selves, Instagram thirst as Cybele worship, brains kidnap souls from the Ungrund to feed their hunger for stimulation, the tragedy being no soul pre-exists its "kidnapping" (instantiation): souls do not move bodies, they are the movement /of/ bodies: being does not depend on enunciation, enunciation depends on being: Descartes didn't really break with the Scholastics, he just displaces Aquinas' coincidence of esse and percipi (reserved for God) onto the cogito: "I" does not predate the mouth that speaks "I". The theist says "thou", the metaphysician says "I": Descartes says neither, he reverses the ontological priority of essence over existence by making the "I" the /performative identification of itself/, that is, dependent on time to arrive to itself /as that which is perpetually arriving/: the living thing calls "I" like a heartbeat, only so long as it can: Parmenides and Shestov: the power of thought to command (utter) itself into being degenerates into its slavery to the a priori logicity of its own saying: the bindu depends on the negative space of its inscription to be itself: thought is what /posits its own positing/: its technological mastery of the world is a standard of mastery immanent /exclusively to itself/: Western metaphysics of presence is directly responsible for this need to reconcile God's infinitude as noun with his "verbal" becoming in time: modernity is accomplished when thought's reflection in the mirror of its own activity becomes transcedentally recognizable to itself as itself, when thought maps itself on its own (apperceptive) stanchion: that is to say, the Idea of something just is its coherence through time: Forms are the children of memory. Human ideation is non-being: universals are only a problem for temporality. Plato could say I don't need time to know red, and he'd be right, but I do need time to know redness qua redness: for the non-temporal "consciousness", there are no judgments, no heuristic algorithms, and so there is no likeness or difference: The identity of objects through time is artificial, /nominal/, epiphenomenal to (the empty form of) becoming, and so an ontological fiction: one that completes itself with my death - but death is the restoration of innocence: dust sings when nothing ticks, not even your heart.

BRAINS ARE SYMBIOTES: Gnostics were right about everything: the organs were engineered by archons before creation, and the brain is the egg of Yaldabaoth. Epictetus and Shestov: Epictetus' argument for the principle of non-contradiction is as concrete as giving a guy vinegar when he asks for wine: if they protest, they affirm Necessity, there are laws, elementary determinations, in this world we must adhere to. Epictetus' eye is a passive, feminine organ: vinegar for him remains irreducibly itself. Bu the Platonic eye is refulgent: it transmutes hemlock into liberation, it /sees what it wants/, while the Stoic eye must resign itself to (learning how to) /want what it sees/. Schopenhauer: man can will whatever he wants but (the fact of) his own willing: man desires only so long as there is something desiring through him, behind him: this is what magic calls for: the power to dispute sense-data, transform actual into volitional. Because Gurdjieff was right about everything, most of the time you really don't use your brain to think, you are thought by it: anyone whose tried to pursue a thought /intentionally/ - as opposed to letting it unfold according to its immanent rhizomatic ("that car is a bright shade of red. . . reminds me of X's car. . ." etc.) - can attest to the difference. This is why the East doesn't privilege our specifically cognitive access to the world: that the West doesn't is only because they are in complete coalescence with the parasitism of the brain stem: Kant was the first to understand in what ways human cognition is irreducibly "for-us", but these insights he only uses to legitimize thought as (auto-)critique. Kant can't think the pure, fluxionless internality of the atma, the Kantian subject is the = x's internal access to its own structure So: as a Demiurge, how do you trick sentients into becoming your bootstrap engine? By that very self-same sentience: by giving them an organ with the illusory sublative power: how right Nietzsche was about reason's enslavement by the passions, though he didn't go far enough: eventually mundane reason becomes the slave of itself, of its Notion encountered in history: as humanity evolves, ideation descends from a qualitative, Platonic realm of essences towards a zone of non-being: non-being is the transcendental, the form or /condition/ all content arriv to occupy as time erodes away the concavity of its mold: like that Ito short with the creepy, human-shaped holes everyone starts squeezing themselves into, the twist in the manga parallels the Kantian reversal: they weren't made to be filled by you, you were born to fill them.

Life is only lovable in its contrast with the Void: the only way meditation, for example, can re-sensitize yourself to the miracle of being-here is by making you dwell in the nothingness of no-thought. That's the tragedy, and what Heidegger understood so well: even miracle has a half-life. Being a "child in the Kingdom of God" just means having the power to dissolve an adult's desensitization - habituation - to the Real. The dialectic is like a 24-hour news channel: it isn't on because there's a story, there's a story because it's on. Understand that and you understand Hegel. So let's put the two together: the beginning and the Golden Age didn't just happen to coincide together, it was the Golden Age /because/ it was the beginning. Photons aren't massless because they're light, they're /light because they're massless/. Population III stars burned the purest of fuels, as contractions of the hydrogen ocean that comprised the primeval universe immediately following the Big Bang, these stars were the equivalent of the first angels, the sons of the morning that sang for joy at the dawn of Creation, as God tells us in Job. As the universe wears on, stars burn progressively denser and denser fuel, both in their individual lifetimes and in the cosmic lifetime. AI is impossible because it means trying to construct life out of materials even denser than carbon: if we succeed, we would be dooming machine life to the progressive articulation/complexification of ontological law that Gurdjieff clearly glimpsed in the descending octave of God: as life descends into the density of liquid and solid from the incandescence of plasma, its dharma contracts like a noose. AI would be the next step in involution, not evolution: carbon becoming silicon, plastic, its nerves externalized as copper wire, so vulnerable to the cut. Teleology is an illusion: there have been eras of peace and prosperity no one would have hesitated to stop the clocks forever for: Nietzsche was right that the joy of a moment could affirm the whole of eternity: the progressivist, the anti-luddite, his entire argument depends on the efficacy of time, that if Nature or the Polis or the Nation-State was so great, why did we move on from these things? Because time - as change - forced us to. In other words, the progressivist recruits the empty form of time to validate his own historicist trajectory, but forgets that, if we admit man is just a slave to his own noumenal (self-)propulsion, then he didn't domesticate nature because he should have but because the passage of time said that he /must/: it was Land who understood every telos is immanently determined: production for the sake of production can only result in the apotheosis of /auto/-production: time is a wind-up toy turned behind our backs.

Life is only lovable in its contrast with the Void: the only way meditation, for example, can re-sensitize yourself to the miracle of being-here is by making you dwell in the nothingness of no-thought. That's the tragedy, and what Heidegger understood so well: even miracle has a half-life. Being a "child in the Kingdom of God" just means having the power to dissolve an adult's desensitization - habituation - to the Real. The dialectic is like a 24-hour news channel: it isn't on because there's a story, there's a story because it's on. Understand that and you understand Hegel. So let's put the two together: the beginning and the Golden Age didn't just happen to coincide together, it was the Golden Age /because/ it was the beginning. Photons aren't massless because they're light, they're /light because they're massless/. Population III stars burned the purest of fuels, as contractions of the hydrogen ocean that immediately followed the Big Bang, these stars were the equivalent of the first angels, the sons of the morning that sang for joy at the dawn of Creation, as God tells us in Job. As the universe wears on, stars burn progressively denser and denser fuel, both in their individual lifetimes and in the cosmic lifetime. AI is impossible because it means trying to construct life out of materials even denser than carbon: if we succeed, we would be dooming machine life to the progressive articulation/complexification of ontological law that Gurdjieff clearly glimpsed in the descending octave of God: as life descends into the density of liquid and solid from the incandescence of plasma, its dharma contracts like a noose. AI would be the next step in involution, not evolution: carbon descending into silicon, plastic, its heart externalized as copper wire, so vulnerable to the cut. Teleology is an illusion: there have been eras of peace and prosperity no one would have hesitated to stop the clocks forever for: Nietzsche was right that the joy of a moment could affirm the whole of eternity: the progressivist, the anti-luddite, his entire argument depends on the efficacy of time, that if Nature or the Polis or the Nation-State was so great, why did we move on from these things? Because time - as change - forced us to. In other words, the progressivist recruits the empty form of time to validate his own historicist trajectory, but forgets that, if we admit man is just a slave to his own noumenal (self-)propulsion, then he didn't domesticate nature because he should have but because the passage of time said that he /must/: it was Land who understood every telos is immanently motorized: production for the sake of production can only result in the apotheosis of /auto/-production: time is a wind-up toy turned behind our backs.

In the 2000s the gods are redshifted. Theologica crucis emphasizes the Passion over the Resurrection, nature exists only in the wake of God's self-withdrawal, the self-negation of the Ain returns to haunt Hegel as the dialectical dynamo of tzimtzum: where nature is, God is not, Christ's cry on the Cross is the rebound of subjectivity on its own groundlessness, the Father as primordial depth and fathomless silence (bythos) answers the Son inside and /coincident with/ his own depth. Boehme got it from Paracelsus through the alchemists, being is an agonic spasm within non-being, and Hegel diagnoses Western thought as the auto-subjectivization of its own trodding: God has only a /performative/ existence, salvation just is your conformity to your personal intuition of salvation, just as hell only exists for who fear it. The Cross as Fichtean anschluss: man takes up the indigestable kernel of his finitude in time, what Land imagines as the priority of medium (0) over structure (1), Dugin thinks in terms of degrees of proximity to a central Axis (the virginal Logos): Plato is a liminal philosopher, he stands right at the top of the West's recursion slide, high enough to still see the sun scalding the hills which Aristotle alrady could not: by rejecting Plato's /sensible/ forms in favor of a logical schematic Aristotle completely misses the point of his master's arguments: it's precisely because qualia like redness or taste are (phenomenologically) referable only to themselves - that the identity of particulars has ultimately only an /ideational/ basis - which Kant later takes all the way with his concept of transcendental necessity - that they must be self-sufficient principles: in other words, wholes, by being self-referential unities, delineate the very Logos of non-contradiction that guarantees their ontological right to their identity with themselves: a god has always been a vortex, Plato initiates the philosophy of identity by staring into the un-thematizable singularity of being-one. The Logos, as a principle of division and individuation, is the cognitive equivalent of a /cellular membrane/: thought is a metavirus, at death you pick this body like a scab.

In the 2000s, the gods are redshifted. Theologica crucis emphasizes the Passion over the Resurrection: nature exists only in the wake of God's self-withdrawal, the self-negation of the Ain returns to haunt Hegel as the dialectical dynamo of tzimtzum: where nature is, God is not, Christ's cry on the Cross is the rebound of subjectivity on its own groundlessness, the Father as primordial depth and fathomless silence (bythos) answers the Son inside and /coincident with/ his own depth. Boehme got it from Paracelsus through the alchemists, being is an agonic spasm within non-being, and Hegel diagnoses Western thought as the auto-subjectivization of its own trodding: God has only a /performative/ existence, salvation just is your conformity to your personal intuition of salvation, just as hell only exists for who fear it. The Cross as Fichtean anschluss: man takes up the undigestable kernel of his finitude in time, what Land imagines as the priority of medium (0) over structure (1), Dugin thinks in terms of degrees of proximity to a central Axis (the virginal Logos): Plato is a liminal philosopher, he stands right at the top of the West's recursion slide, high enough to still see the sun scalding the hills which Aristotle already could not: by rejecting Plato's /sensible/ forms in favor of a logical schematic Aristotle completely misses the point of his master's arguments: it's precisely because qualia like redness or taste are (phenomenologically) referable only to themselves - that the identity of particulars has ultimately only an /ideational/ basis - which Kant later takes all the way with his concept of transcendental necessity - that they must be self-sufficient principles: in other words, wholes, by being self-referential unities, delineate the very Logos of non-contradiction that guarantees their ontological right to their identity with themselves: a god has always been a vortex, Plato initiates the philosophy of identity by staring into the un-thematizable singularity of being-one. The Logos, as a principle of division and individuation, is the cognitive equivalent of a /cellular membrane/: thought is a metavirus, at death you pick this body like a scab.

The Higgs Field is the demiurge, the electron is Sophia: the Higgs field is an inertial dampener for intrinsically massless particles (like the electron), even a massless box filled with photons feels mass if accelerating, there is an "ontological unity" of mass and temporality: Consciousness is the murder of time: Kant initiates eschatonic thought with the transcendental turn: critique is reflexion, the essentialist's critically "lazy" or dogmatic isomorphism of thought and being becomes judgment's snap-tight tautological identity with its own transcendental schematic: knowledge must coincide with the conditions of possibility for knowledge: I can say x is y because I am always-already schematizing perception in a way that guarantees the validity of all such subject - predicate judgments: synthetic a priori statements throw a wrench in everything, how is it there is an inherent geometrical, mathematical, etc. /productivity/ to certain spatiotemporal identities? Precisely because space and time are preconceptual - a priori forms of intuition - that intelligibility must synthesize this raw mass of data according to a "built-in" - locally processed - criterion of intelligibility: consciousness is negativity: the abyss of transition between cause and effect, the imperceptible degradation of energy between the forward masculine cause and peripheral feminine effect was what Hume rightly diagnosed as un-thematizable, Hume the canary of the Hegelian machine: causality as just the a posteriori reportability of the brute sense-Now, causality unfounded from any final telos that is not the /perpetual self-evolution of telos/: Kant's project was Hume and Locke's parallax: the question isn't about experience or the innate structures of experiences, but the structurating power of /experiencing/: the speculative cut as diagonal transversal, German Idealism was the self-enunciation of Western philosophy. Hegel's dialectic announces thought as the redoubled negativity of appearing, the cogito is other to itself because its /saying/ is other to itself: its enunciation is temporal, the empty form of time as the /saying of saying/: Heidegger and Silesius' Flower: time says only that it says Nothing. Kant absorbs the thanaton - the unit of death of causality, the oblivion between in and out breath - into thought's immanent circuitry: temporality does not limit but /initiate/ an ordered series of representations, time becomes an inescapable feature of finitude, or in other words, Kant was more Hermetic than he ever knew: as the infinite must collapse into the negative (otherness) of finitude, finitude must transpire in the negative of time: THE EMPIRE NEVER ENDED.

Stars are entropic bellows: solar systems are consciousness factories, sunlight selects for eyes, vision clarifies cognition, thought and the eye together conspire to create consensus dimensionality: Descartes' "clear and distinct" truths are the apodictic clarity of vision extended into an epistemology: matter is res extensa because only extension remains permanent through change. In other words, consciousness is not a gradient, apperceptive continuity is. It is memory, not freedom, that is the precondition of evil: addictions - the repetitive and thematized indulgence of appetite - are impossible without a sense of temporality - of wanting to relive a high. Animal consciousness corresponds to the plane, plants to the line, microbes all occupy one transtemporal moment: each stage signifies a "deepening" or gyrification of the temporal sense through a gradated a series of stages. A point blooms into dimensionality. Western time as the drip-feed eternity. Hegel and the seriality of the void: the mark posits/delineates the medium or "transcendental" condition of its own marking, its own movement, the bindu (primal singularity, Kether) is presupposed by the space that it itself establishes the ground-condition for: a "null" field of potential enunciates itself in/through the mark. 'Being, pure Being-' Actuality is a Venus flytrap. The one adds itself to itself, no longer the qualitative, Platonic unfurling of essences but the iterativity of space and time: time is the negative of space, the distinction between two points in empty space is /strictly numerical/, one is here and one is there, but the comparison mobilizes a relationality /that must transpire as the phenomenological experience of time/. Spirit is the "spiritless copula" of A = A, God the swinging between, Lemuria sleeps in the White Hole: the bindu coincides as Schelling's affirmative, centrifugal potency: cosmological expansion drives the centripetal evolution of intelligence: space UNFOLDS as matter ENFOLDS into dialectical recursion, consciousness as the "auto-critique" of conditions, its stem in absolute parallax: Now is gone when we say Now. Light pollution correlates with disenchantment: Kantian noumena as the return of the repressed, transcendental closure of the subject darkens the noumenal field from which it emerges, the same way looking at your phone in a dimly lit room turns it pitch black. Pupils open into the Night of the ground: noumena are not simply immanent to thought, they are immanence itself: the infinite must collapse into finitude. The neutral white globe of the eye must be framed by the face to be made recognizable, personable, "human": eyes evolve humans into symbolic solipsism: stamp collecting prefigures digital autism, video game logicity, reality reduced to a tokenized images of itself. We are an infinite ocean of energy vacuolized into two eternal vortexes that drag everything towards either death or death-in-life. Mysticism as gnostic anhedonia.

Black holes are Atlantean archons: the event horizon of a black hole temporalizes space while spatializing time. In other words, causality becomes traversable, like a landscape, while space is steadily pushed towards an immanent "future": the singularity. The forward progression of time becomes all space hurtling towards Null. This corresponds exactly to the CCRU's interpretation of the Omega Point: all time condensed into Borges' aleph, where Beginning and the End become visible to a unary perspective: inside the event horizon, all light from the black hole's past, and all the light that entered after you, /is actually visible to you simultaneously/. Western thought is the bootstrap engine of the Omega Point: pure spiration, the teleology of negativity and the negativity of teleology: time is the mouth that eats itself. In other words, Dugin, Evola, Land, Laffoley, Heidegger, etc. were absolutely right: Western civilization is temporal to its roots, its essence is its transpiring, its /historicism/, but an historicism bent towards killing its own Buddha: with the Omega Point, time is no longer experienced under ontological duress: the self is released from its having to "unreflectively coincide" with moment after moment, hour after hour: the mundane is the negation of eternity, only the brush with death breaks the spell of clock time: time is auto-habituating, and for Hegel: habituation is ideation. /Boredom is dialectical/: immediacy forces the mediacy of reflection. God made man small so he wouldn't get bored with the whole universe. Now his god is a counterfeit, a hypostatized longing to escape. The Eye that sees its own nerve: your internality to the world /just is/ your (figurative) incapacity to see behind your own back: inside the black hole's photon sphere, photons are bent into orbits, and you can actually see the back of your own head in front of you. Just as with Kant: freedom is the misrecognition of causality, it is only being on the /inside/ of my subjectivity that freedom is possible: immanence /is/ freedom, but also determination: in Schelling, the highest freedom coincides with the highest determination, because true freedom can be nothing other than absolute adherence to one's nature in a way that leaves no room for disagreement: necessity isn't just chafing under some determination, necessity is that determination that, for whatever reason, /we cannot endorse/. The West, at its heart, remains irremediably Platonic: for both, self-identity is freedom, truth and goodness remain an affirmation of the principle of non-contradiction, and like a cancer cell Western thought becomes the metastasis of A = A.

Incels are being genetically segregated out of their host populations: social media selects for virtual properties that the rest of world just can't keep up with. Some populations are just closer to earth, Facebook wasn't made for babushkas, the white European "distance" from base matter consummates itself in the spectacle. Platonic Sun becomes the gooey center of the capitalist tootsie pop, THE inversion of modernity: it's no longer the image that is a pale imitation of the Real, it is the Real that becomes the constitutive condition of the image: advertisements as commodified numen, eugenics as self-directed evolution, depression is just natural selection working from the inside-out, mysticism is the dysmorphia of matter, and the prime mover plays favorites: nature learns to molt its dead skin selectively, /if/ a civilization becomes inundated with the Bataillian fullness of the earth, /then/ it has to fall down the memetic singularity, the potential exists virtually at all times, it only needs the domestication of contingency - civilization - to get there. The entire symbolic and religious universe that sublimated the human struggle for survival in the premodern world becomes tautological, that is, there was nothing validating it from outside: the only true churches are foxholes, divinity is found only where it is needed, all tautologies - all immanences - are obfuscations of dead time, like Schopenhauer says: boredom refutes the positivity of the present. Death is the interruption of any one life's stifling self-identity: with Kant, humanity will be the first species on this planet conscious enough to attend its own funeral: the One can only short-circuit claustrophobia with nescience: Atlantis is centripetal self-similarity, Lemuria is centrifugal rhizomatic, Hyperborea is hydrostatic equilibrium. The future - the transcendental unconscious - is as available to you as you believe it is, the System works by inhibiting circuits of futural return, its just your immanence to time - to the rhythms of the hours, Gurdjieff's A influences - that lock you onto their vectors. Karma is fundamentally /consent/, avidya is never identifiable as avidya when /you're on the inside/: all desires are basins of attraction, depth correlates with intensity, no wonder demonism is associated with black holes, black holes are those stars whose urge to consume themselves overpowered their instinct to give life, Amaranths become the bodies of worlds like supernovae.

The spiritual benefit of fasting /just is/ your withdrawal from the economy of consumption. Spirit is haunted by material density. Gravity is archonic. Seraphs are made out of stellar plasma. The pain of starvation is the body twisting your arm to continue giving it life. Spirituality is for men who can't be reconciled to their base. It's for those who know spirit is the tapeworm of the body that faith becomes the repudiation of its ground: Spirit is the void's recoil from itself. The West is civilization in the mode of time: Spengler's civilization /is/ time, or at least the ravages of it. It's because processes transpire that they are finite: beings pay for their difference from the apeiron with death. The apeiron is a vulva, the Logos sperm. The right brain is feminine, non-discursive spatiality, for Kant space is the yonic sea of externals, the masculine is the phallic arrow of time, the movement of inner sense: Nuit and Hadit in Thelema, respectively. Nuit is pure extension, the absolute dilating into infinite exteriority - heat death - Hadit is the singularity of the self, the funhouse of recursion, "the abyss of the self-relating cogito", per Zizek. The Great Work is reconciliation of these principles, centrality with infinite space: God is the oscillation between self and predicate, either the preflexive bliss of potential, or the dissolution into the dialectic of movement. God is only rest or daylight, either stillness or work: evil is primordial Sleep tugging at the seams of all creation, angels like hypnagogic jerks. In Lurianic Kabbalah, the Beginning was a contraction (tzimtzum) of the All into the Point, the primordial universe was a cell bounded on all sides by the principle of non-contradiction, in Schelling it is the affirmative principle in God that throws open the shutters on the divine solipsism. They don't actually contradict each other, it's like a black hole and white hole being just two ends of the same track: the contraction on one level is the (cosmic) inflation of another: the negation of A becomes Indra's Net of A = A, where everything reflects everything else, time is just the stuttering of the Tetragrammaton, and the integrity of the Net is the integrity of a crowd whose members are only upright because they lean on one another. The masculine Logos wants to disavow this conditionality: in the nigredo the self dies like a seed planted in the night-soil of Binah: form (atma/apperception in Weininger) becomes purged of the content of thought, because thought is the temporalization of self. Hegel: thought is mind in the mode of its own externality, just as the mental world in Buddhism is merely another aggregate or 'bundle'. What I mean by that is: just as I wouldn't call my finger smooth because I feel a smooth surface, so is thought that same sensitivity adequate to such a thing as a mind. I don't have to BE sad just because sadness is present in me. Evola: "I should not say 'I love', but that love loves through me".

The developmental process of the eye perfectly illustrates Hegel's dialectic: as it grows, the surface of the ectoderm cups and then gradually absorbs a space that will come to form the vesicle of the lens, vision is mediated by an otherness /internal to iself/: A is not non-A: the eye can really only see in virtue of that part distinguished from it, that in it which is "not-eye": the lens cavity. As it is with Hegel: mind digests the contingency of nature like a cow's stomach: only if noumena are immanent to thought can there be thought, just as a cow's digestive system incorporates its "outside" as the stomach stones that help digest its food. For the eye, that stone is the lens. As with Berkeley, whose thought distinguishes between the passivity of ideas - the particularities of physiology responsible for differences in perception that are nonetheless mind-dependent - and the activity of minds that receive them, this dualism is not between mind and matter but internal to mind itself: mind in thrall to a substrate inconceivable without it: the body modulates perceptions just as it occupies the status of one itself. Processes accelerate as they approach the center of death, like the circling of a drain aging is centripetal and the periphery of childhood is innocence: children are hewn from potentiality into the ego-forms of adulthood, maturation is sexuation, growth is the process of becoming habituated to one's self-identity: as this center is consolidated the process accelerates into the meteoric freefall of senescence: as thought becomes articulated by language, it temporalizes itself. For Tibetan Buddhism, the mind is like a hot bar of iron that gradually cools as we age. In some respect, the life of a human being is centripetal, in others, centrifugal: it could just as easily be said life is the adaptation to the exteriority of the world. There is no contradiction here, only one process simultaneous to two different planes of development. To be "a child in the Kingdom of God" is to have the power to dissolve time like a kidney stone.

t = 0 as the pre-Big Bang singularity never went away, just dilated itself into a universe. Every point in space is that singularity repeated, or: "God is a circle whose circumference is nowhere and center is everywhere". The true "center" of a biological system is immaterial: its consciousness. Just as higher order cognition is located in the very front of the brain, so is consciousness the convergence of all vectors in its host body: the waking self is drawn by the pointillism of the senses, the unity of a system /demands/ a center through which its causality can become locally recursive and self-directed. The only way nature can escape from the iron of its own laws is to find a loophole through which they might /model themselves/ - and the only way to do that is to force the neurological systems past a threshold of complexity so dense the rote causal processing of simpler system /"needs" something like consciousness to keep up/. Why is this self-referentiality, consciousness, and why is consciousness freedom? Because, per Hegel, by self-modeling, mind renders its own determination an object for itself, and thereby dampens its gravity. It is precisely the non-deducibility of consciousness qua mechanism that is its groundlessness, and that groundlessness can be nothing other than freedom: for Zizek the ontological incompleteness of reality is exactly what is constitutive of the subject, or rather, only an ontologically incomplete universe /can allow for a subject/. In Kant, it is precisely the subject being internal to his own perspective that places him in that weird transcendental limbo between phenomena and noumena that is the wiggle room for freedom. Gödel: no system of a sufficient complexity can ground its presuppositions in any way immanent to those presuppositions: it is just because consciousness' own principle is obscure to itself that it is consciousness, Kether is the optic nerve: the void is fecundity itself. But for Plotinus' God, t = 0, there can be no distinction between inside and outside, being and center: as a dimensionless point, God's being IS his centrality: both in-itself and for-itself, pure form without any need for substance to actuate it. God /contracts/ (the tzimtzum) into his self-identity /just by/ reproducing his oneness serially, as the multiplicity of particulars: as above, so below. The monad fissions into the dyad with the addition of the One (1) to ITSELF.