/lit/ - Literature

>>19716701
>>19716846
A real gnostic would never resort to suicide. The only way to spite the Demiurge is to soldier on and on the best you can through this material hell, allowing yourself to fall to neither apathy nor evil that dominate it

You're just a weak little faggot

>>18979369
Perspicacious as always.

>man-in-man
I'll refer to my formula: I am not immanent to nature (inside it, fastened to its plane), but immanent FROM it (like you say: the escape is inescapable: great fucking formula by the way... that I am even a "subject" in the first place means my separation has already been - mostly - enacted). A beautifully elegant whitepill if there ever was one.

Man-in-man is always burrowing beneath the castles of phenomena - the great Principles of Sufficient X: History, Philosophy, Reason... while the great universalisms of the World always fail to achieve terminal velocity.

It's helpful to think of how Laruelle inverts philosophy's conventional understanding of transcendence & immanence. Usually: transcendence is liberating, immanence is a capture.

In Laruelle's system: transcendence is capture (by binding me, like you say, to this-or-that set of ontological coordinates), and immanence is liberative, indeed, IS the form of liberation itself.

Because the One is radically autonomous with respect to the Mixture - meaning it isn't a Plotinian One, some bank of possibilities which it emanates/actuates into a World - and because I am also radically autonomous with respect to the world (not as a person, a human being, but a Real on my side), then I am a "clone" of this positive nothingness. I am a unilateral projection of this One, "thrown forth" but never converted backwards to its bosom. No reversion, forget reversions, I am a Stranger, the most alone thing in the World.

>how does the One constrain ontology

Again: give up the idea of a One as a superset, container, even a super-site (some mega-Lichtung a la Heidegger; that would be the World). For right now, since we're flirting with the absolute edge of philosophical abstraction, think of the One more like a Zizekian Non-all than an All.

Another way to put it: remember the formula: "Jehovah dictates, Christ underdetermines". Jehovah is the circularity or "program" of the sun-spot, the membrane which keeps the Logos shut tight on some bank of algorithmic possibility - I read a really excellent paper on the Platonic chora which describes it as something like a library of all possible "connections" inherent to a given set of ontological coordinates. Laruelle's point is basically: not only is the library bigger than you know (Yaldy as the most tyrannical librarian who keeps you confined to a single wing), but there are other libraries as well, libraries of libraries, and so on.

Is the One a superset of all ontological modes? Yes, but it is the most porous superset, it is not a simple null, but an Identity without content, or we could say: it is the "content" of all possible identities.

Continued.

How do I get into gnosticism?