/lit/ - Literature

>>12051730
>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.
this bothered me in Berkeley somewhat. What does it mean that there are these two types of thing in reality, Idea and Spirit

>To be "a child in the Kingdom of God" is to have the power to dissolve time like a kidney stone.

Schelling was right about everything: non-being hungers for being, it might be repugnant to say but Crowley isn't wrong about the high potency of occult energies present in children, which sick fucks want to consume for themselves: fixity is death, but in the young potentiality is still in full rhizomatic bloom. This is actually the goal of the Great Work: the return to the freedom and spontaneity of the prenatal void in life. Rationality is associated with adulthood just because thought is information - determinacy - and, as such, is also density: look at black holes: black holes are any volume of space in which the Bekenstein bound for information has been reached. Singularities are solipsism of God, an aloneness that for him alone can become the seedbed of the universe: as the Ain negates itself to produce finitude, so do stars support life only with the consumption of their bodies. All becoming is a sacrificial act, mysticism is mind consenting to the altar. Weil was right about everything: spirit is becoming edible to oneself. See: her dichotomy of looking and eating: in this universe, where desire and possession are mutually exclusive, I can admire the mountain from afar, but its conquest is only a counterfeit possession: to truly have it I must be it, but in being it there is the loss of the distance that made it sacred. In consumption, I don't become anything, my body's metabolism is precisely the process of food becoming-other in me: I access the world /just as/ the membrane that renders it inaccessible: in tasting food the tongue tastes only itself: for Weil evil is nothing but the thirst to consume in spite of this very law that renders it (im)possible. In the Garden, looking was eating: the thought coincided with its object because for God his thoughts are his objects: the signifier of a bird is the bird itself because it is only in the divine mind that "bird-ness" finds its ultimate referent: itself. The Logos is the metalanguage of being. Spirit means being the stomach that digests itself. Consciousness is the bootstrap engine of an event horizon computer. The only argument an atheist needs is the existence of suicide. Love and death are siamese twins. Tears water no flowers. Man is a failed star, and it is you lonely ones I love most, your cricket songs. Sunburned so you might know love like the dead.

Stage 3 in the development of the eye

>>12051762
an idea is passive because is "caused" in me, but not as a result of any mind-independent substance, as I understand it: consciousness is self-enclosed, and the principle of the integrity of this closure - the apparent objectivity of nature - Berkeley just calls God.

the consistency of experience is something guaranteed internal to it and through it, through the mode of idea (indeed, the only mode), Kant just takes it further, Berkeley still allows for "some" externality in the figure of God

>>12051786
Thanks for the love: right back at you. Would you say the rational mind you seem to be talking about is masculine, rather than feminine? Is there any significance to that, any larger perspective we can derive from your masturbatory self-enclosure in the masculine mind where your sublimated libido expresses itself, as you expose yourself, your logophallus onto this board? Think about that: nothing personal.
Maybe you think this direction you describe, where consciousness encloses itself further and accelerates into autonomy is because of some envious perceived lack in men, a miscommunication, the desire for intellect, hijacked by the ego, to replicate itself, gaze at itself in form, masturbate itself and birth without woman, the logos appropriating the miracle bestowed by the Gods upon man, the gift of immortality through unison in man and woman: "looking becomes eating" when the paternal vulva nourishes man: the heartbreak from the mother's separation and the pain of rejection (women love us for the children we can give them) thus becomes resolved in the intellect: consciousness is a kind of being hijacked by the ego/phallus towards self-control and other contradictory. modes. We become God once we become immortal, space and time fold and become irrelevant, there's no relevant timeline for an immortal (self-replicating(AI) being) hence we become absolute. The integral GEbser talks about really is just potentiality, otherwise we would pass from mental to archaic once we reunite with woman: Goethe knew this, Kant was the devil, Hegel was a boy turned God: Goethe knew but could hardly admit the sanctity of the Mothers, he feared them: perhaps he wasn't romantic enough: "looking was eating" in the garden too, dawn of man prehistory, where appetites were satisfied very consistently until language became written and magic religions lost their grip: Einstein knew about this, the black hole thing, man become sparse energy by negating himself, his other, woman. Postmodernism as the rationalisation that we could all die at any second after ww2 and hiro-nagasaki showed man's capacity for self-destruction: the death drive becomes elucidated, unfortunately it became a boys club and ate into culture as a reaction to state-suicide. The thirst to consume, Weil is almost there, it's the thirst to consume itself, enclosed consciousness (male womb) becomes self-sufficient and eats itself, the excrement piles into an abstract mountain where nothing lives: since we consume something finite it's linked to death and the desire for void, formless, soundless nothing to drown out the cries of the children our women use us for, or so the ego, enviously confides: abrahamic religions as hijacked family ethics: hinduism and buddhism as ego control: taoism too: German Idealism was the desire to come to grips with this archaic separation but the homies were too gay and suppressed by institutions: pomo was less polite, but capitalism
Expand on Fichte?

>>12051786
>All becoming is a sacrificial act,
reinforcing my belief that the universe is God killing himself so that his body may be repurposed into a garden of sorts

>>12052067
good job, you aped (mocked?) the style while actually having very interesting things to say. "death drive is a boy's club", hah, that's really great.

i'll write up a longer reply shortly, need time to absorb

>>12052079
gurdjieff would agree with you, as would nietzsche: spirit is a stomach. spirituality is optimized consumption.

>>12052067
The feminine rationality seems to be opportunism and genetic / social machiavellianism.
You're right about men though. Yet I need to state that female selection has pushed men into irrationality. In fact, thinking is a social death, and a thinking man is seen by females as a loser. Not so by men, aside from those who want easy female attention.

>>12052067
ok, here we go

>Would you say the rational mind you seem to be talking about is masculine, rather than feminine?

not all the way, this process still incorporates the "feminine", pomo culture of critique, what i'm trying to say is this "self-masturbatory Logos" didn't really die with the philosophers of suspicion diagnosing it - it isn't an exclusively "modernist" phenomenon - because in fact i think it was in them that the recursion of thought finds its greatest expression, just as this process of deconstructing its own presuppositions

>Is there any significance to that, any larger perspective we can derive from your masturbatory self-enclosure on this board?

of course there is, i sublimate my own energies into these posts instead of jacking off, but there is a hierarchy of sublimations, and they're organized according to the degree they have no illusions about themselves AS sublimation. consumption is inescepable, except if it consumes itself

as for the rest, yes, this perceived masculine lack is the male anxiety of the womb, the recognition of its dependency on woman/Other to actuate itself, man isn't self-caused, he's pulled out of potential by, essentially, Eve.

history is consciousness' progressive disavowal of its (dependency on) its substrate, and this substrate gets darker and more noumenal, more landian, the more it is put out of sight and out of mind by structures of discusion

we CANNOT admit the sanctity of the Mothers, because to admit their sanctity would be to admit the priority of ground over its issue, and it would do nothing but affirm life as just the self-deviation of the void, try as it might it only cements its identity with its ground, but a ground that only comes into focus in its noncoincidence with itself as mind: entropy seems to be schelling's positive potency in god, the urge to expand and dilate towards uniformity, homogeneity, /conformity/

there's a kind of primordial quiescence that, in resisting with all our might, we're only feeding with that resistance, because - if current cosmological models are to believed - that resistance is the very motor of the epistrophe, of the return to the very thing we're fighting tooth and nail to never return to

technology and capitalism are trying to accomplish in time what the initiate is trying to accomplish inside himself, in the eternity of inwardness: the transcendence of all conditionality. yes, abrahamic religions DO hijack the family dynamic, because through the rejection of BIOLOGICAL facticity one enters into a spiritual/memetic brotherhood.

hegel's point is spirit DOES modify the Nothing, does improve on it, and his great optimism stems from the fact that the nature of the void is inseperable from the nature of spirit as its self-sublation. your post is a little darker.

im interested in understanding just how much of our pessimism is actually justified

What should I start reading to understand these posts?

>>12052454
op seems to like hegel

>>12052454
http://unurthed.com/

http://openhumanitiespress.org/books/download/Carew_2014_Ontological-Catastrophe.pdf

http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Anatta,_Anatman,_No-Self,_Soulessness_and_other_Nihilistic_bullshit_your_local_retarded_%27%27buddhist%27%27_will_tell_you_about.

https://epdf.tips/philosophical-investigations-into-the-essence-of-human-freedom-s-u-n-y-series-in.html


these are good introductions to this type of stuff

>>12052454
>>12052582

last but not least:

https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/618/1040

>>12052582
awesome ty

>>12052454
Kant, but a lot of it is not very complicated in terms of background knowledge required to read , most of this has tldr's you can use search engines to find.

It's not very esoteric

I think the distinction between God and his ground in Schelling is relevant here. And he's specifically not talking about a substantial, "transcendent" ground, he means God's ground is dark to him /just because/ he is self-caused, /because/ existence is not a predicate that God, as something like the principle of predication (or more precisely, non-contradiction), can't grok his own that-ness. His groundlessness is a riddle to him.

I think Proclus puts it better, he preserves the transcendence of forms through an intelligible hierarchy: red objects participate in the Form of Red only in the mode of time, red kind of in all the ways it can be contingently modified, but a Form remains transcendent to its instances on the intelligible plane that accounts for whatever "onto-logic" is at work responsible for the correspondence between phenomenological red and red as a wavelength.

But someone like Berkeley could say, red corresponds only to itself, and he would be right, redness is a circle, the Forms are closed, tautological, and it occurs to me the hinge of antiquity/modernity, essentialism/voluntarism, pre-critical/critical thought, etc. probably has a lot to do with a shift in ontological priority to particulars, whether substance is arbitrary tot he forms that animate it, or whether universals are just the immanent to the constitutive condition of subjectivity/depths of matter(Kant/Deleuze), the whole being nothing but a logical continuity of particulars to which it owes its life as its fundamental identity with them.

whether, I guess, either a receptivity or a defect of the intellect is responsible for the feeling that colors, lights, and sounds come from an Outside, if we've "nominalized" spirits out of existence. But Plato initiates the dialectic spiral precisely by saying: the word for a Form in the Logos, /just is/ its immanence to itself, its quiddity or essential determination here and now. Why else would they stress silence and contemplation? Hegel says there is no metalanguage, all essences - tree-ness, cat-ness, blue-ness, whatever - are appearances folded back in on themselves, Plato seems to suggest that only the absence of one can be the eternal justification of the Good, there is a groundlessness to its validity that is simultaneously the validity of its groundlessness, a Beyond all objects are irradiated towards, pulled this way and that, like cheese taste charts for the numen

>>12052616
Please post actual esoteric material then. I'm srs

>>12052664
These

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/tah/index.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/egt/index.htm

>>12052454
pretty self explanatory stuff desu, this is just systematized logic at work

>>12052211
Logos died for another reason man man

>>12052687
Well obviously anon some rando on 4chan isn't gonna compare to Vedantic primary sources

>>12052687
>Sanai

absolutely based

>>12052454

Nobody, it's all garbage. I've studied everyone they mention in the course of undergrad/postgrad and run undergrad courses on two of the thinkers OP mentions. It's word salad, deranged rambling.

If you want to learn some Hegel you could do a lot worse than reading the Phenomenology with Lauer and Houlgate as your reading guides.

reminder that atheism is true and no amount of pseud faggotry can lead you to objectively discovering supernaturalism as a thing that can exist lmao

>>12053377
but drugs can check mate athiests

>>12053390
drugs can alter brain chemistry but that's all senpai. if you fell for the metaphysics lsd meme I don't blame you because it's pretty funny to want to think that way, that there's more to humans than a biological computer in their skulls but math and basic logical reasoning indicate otherwise

>>12052454

You don't need to read anything. Just to understand the meaning of the words themselves and how they relation to each other, instead of rote morphological association.

>>12053377

But only Atheists invoke the "supernatural".

>>12053377
What is true and what is necessary are two different things.

>>12052687
>zhuangzi
actually good

yawn

>>12052098
4chan won't let me post the pdf but this guy has a book called Чeлoвeк — этo мнoгocлoжнoe cyщecтвo and it is directly in line with how I think of things, ty for the rec

>>12053855
the others are better desu, I still like it too though

>>12053377
atheism and theism have nothing to do with this thread

>>12052582
>Modern Buddhism (so-called, not that it is Buddhism in any way) labors under the heinous delusion that from the outset there is no immaterial and ontological soul, or atman in the system of Buddhism and therefore the only logical conclusion from this false premise is that Buddhism is merely a profane moral Humanism based in compassionate empirical idealism, ‘liberation but no Liberant’, and this is palpably false. Under the guise of a more polished form of physicalism or rather, Atheism, a mere qualifier of objective phenomena, anatta, has overrun a noetic metaphysics, Buddhism, based in extracting the nous (spirit, citta, Self) from the objective cosmos (=anatta) wherein it has been miserably immersed since time immemorial as due to the attribute of the Absolute (Brahman, Greek = Hen), that being avijja (agnosis, nescience, as is philosophically meant Emanationism). Avijja (a+vijja (atman)) and anatta (an+atman) in no way differ, such that both refer to the beginningless privation, or objectivity immanent to the Absolute.

Those folks sure are angry. I'm okay with saving - what can be saved, of Buddhism from Cali Liberal-Humanist-Lifestyle and Chinese Happy-Bugman-Matrix Buddhism. But raping it with anything remotely to idealism is just dumb.

>>12055932
I don't think you understand Buddhism, what is idealist about a Self? do you understand how incoherent Buddhism becomes if the self is exhausted by its empirical aggregate?

>>12052211
>history is consciousness' progressive disavowal of its (dependency on) its substrate, and this substrate gets darker and more noumenal, more landian, the more it is put out of sight and out of mind by structures of discusion

THIS. Where can I read more about this specifically?

>>12055986
it's more a trend of thought that you pick up over reading everything you can get your hands on, BUT I think Land's essay on Kant that opens Fanged Noumena is an excellent start, he thinks Kant wants alterity without actually wanting it, by subordinating the contingencies of experience to a priori structures those contingencies seem more and more foreboding as those contingencies begin to swarm at the gate

>>12056002
Did you read or are you interested in reading, recently translated Sloterdijk Spheres trilogy?

>>12056034
I'm interested, sell me on it

This is why Marx needed to kill German Idealism before it got out of hand. It was sad but ultimately a mercy killing.

>>12056079
marxist slime molds leave

>>12056079
Trump completed the system of German Idealism, thankfully. now the philosophical planets are aligned

>>12056079
Zizek would shit in your face.

>>12056269
Žižek is barely a Marxist, he's a radical Hegelian who came out of the Yugoslav school of "let's focus on early humanist Marx because the Soviets are really mean". Althusser was absolutely right, the epistemological break in late Marx is what constitutes his true genius, humanist Marx belongs in the thrash can of History.

>>12056422
>Althusser was absolutely right, the epistemological break in late Marx is what constitutes his true genius, humanist Marx belongs in the thrash can of History.
There was no "epistemological break", what happened is Marx read Stirner and freaked out that his whole project was deeply flawed and didn't want to look like a dopey Feurbacian humanist so slightly changed his rhetoric without revising any of the substance

>>12056435
Lol, Karl & Freddy wrote about Stirner in The German Ideology when they were in their 20s, it never got published and they basically never talked about him again. Marx focused his time on anally destroying the whole framework of political economy and revolutionising social science, he didn't give a shit about some minor post-Hegelian that was literally appropriated by libertarians later.

I like this Stirnerite mythology about him being an insurmountable obstacle in Marxism though, you have to tell me where it comes from.

>>12056422
What was this epistemological break? I'm not really Marxist

>>12056484
>they basically never talked about him again
There's a reason for that, same as why most versions of the German Ideology published were abridged without the Stirner section, gotta hide the real source of criticism of Feuerbach

>>12056484
Marx has got to be the single most cancerous writer ever. Who can even compete? Martin Luther, but that was bound to happen sooner or later

Marxism is a true aberration that need never have existed

I too love how a thread on Hegelian metaphysics and Weil's philosophy of desire descended into another Marxist debate

>>12056553
>a thread on Hegelian metaphysics and Weil's philosophy of desire
implying schizoidposter has a real thread topic ever

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1874&context=ccr

REMINDER: HEGEL WAS A WHITE MAN, HE WAS RED PILLED, HE UNDERSTOOD NIGGERS AS NPCs

>>12056491
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Althusser#Epistemological_break

>>12056559
don't confuse breadth with disorganization

>>12056573
>disorganization
quite literally the essence of his posts, both content and style wise

>>12056578
they're tight and very controlled, there are leaps but they're not without a rhyme to their madness

>>12051730
Use some Reddit spacing for your wall of text next time you fucking contrarian sperg.

>>12056566
this is very good, also based and redpilled