/lit/ - Literature

>>12349705
Great post, dude. Really resonates with my own views, desu.

>>12349705
Is this an excerpt from something?

>>12349705
Based and Knightpilled

>>12349705
Chivalrous

>>12349705
>So does the sage, loving wisdom with his whole heart, embrace the truth plainly before him, even as it is reviled and mocked by others.
dope, keep writing brother

>>12349705
Post a pdf of the first chapter

>>12349705
thank you

>>12349705
Keep the good work anon

>>12349705
This resembles a piece I recently wrote on truth but with the mystic instead of the sage, and science/religion in opposition. I think you say it better, but it's still interesting that however far across the world we all are from each other we can reach the same thoughts.
>The mystic embraces truths both worldly and unworldly, seeing truth in its many cloaks and greeting them all as one and the same. The scientist and the Christian see only its particular costumes, and when truth dresses differently, fight or flee. But the dressings of truth are only its ghosts, and wither without a body underneath. If only the scientist and Christian could see that the same spectres haunt them both!
>There are indeed mystical truths and untruths, but there is no assurance for the mystic of non-contradiction: differing accounts of truth may all emerge from the same origin, capturing different aspects of the same absolute truth. For the mystic, truth finds itself in all places; for the mystic finds truth in all places.

I often seem Christians seemingly equating truth with beauty. I don't really understand.

>>12349705
very wholesome

>>12351091
Beauty is part of the truth

>>12351031
Nice, anon. Some well-dressed sentences here. My only contribution is to change "underneath" to "beneath", beside the word "body", so that you now have the double-alliteration of "wither without a body beneath". It sounds more poetic, to me. That's all, and just my personal opinion. Keep it up! C:

>>12351682
Thanks for the encouraging recommendation anon, I appreciate it. I agree with your suggestion of "beneath" and changed the sentence. I was going for an aphoristic/poetic style so I also think that gets closer to my intention.
The bits I posted are from a much larger (~20 page) piece which I call a cosmology of spirit. If you're interested in reading it, or any other selections, let me know--it definitely helps to have another set of eyes. Thanks again : )

>>12351604
How?

>>12351091
>Beauty is truth, and truth, beauty--that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
Ever heard this one from Keats? Kant makes a similar argument regarding the sublime, that sublime experiences of beauty illumine the mind.

>>12351910
No problem at all, it is genuinely well-written my friend. Especially the "dresses differently" sentence. I also happen to align with the sort of sentiment you shared there, and OP in his post, regarding spiritualism versus institutionalism, and consider myself something of a "mystic with no religion". Are you the same? An independent spiritual seeker? Is that why you wrote what you did? And I am not sure if that's what OP aligns with too - the notion of non-dogmatic pursuing of truth. I wish our whole world could move in said direction - away from these ruling institutions which are, regardless of cause, keeping us enslaved. Science denies spirituality, while Christianity accepts only its own spirituality - and both are blind for doing so.

But anyway, yes anon, send me some. I'll gladly read it and tell you my thoughts. C:

>>12349705
Who are you anon, what is your background? Why did you write this? I like it very much. Are you a spiritual seeker, or of a specific religion? I am one personally, and so this resonated well with me. And especially the last sentence, since I do strive to be childlike, but lately torture myself because of how much I resent myself for certain things I've done in my life, purposely performing degrading deeds to myself which I do not want to do. :( Viewing "media" of a kind which I do not at all like, which are the opposite of innocent. I won't name it, but you know what it is. I just hate myself so badly, right now. I deserve nothing in life, except misery. And so I inflict it on myself. I wanted a Mommy GF, but I no longer think I deserve one, or will ever get one. I only want death, yet sadly that is not an "end" either - merely a continuation, but without the dense body.

Sorry for the blogpost, I just don't have anyone to talk to and hoped maybe someone here could speak to me.

>>12351091
Dietrich von Hildebrand's Aesthetics is all about this.

>>12349705
based

>>12352509
Fix your heart on the good, and do not stray from it. See the movement from first to last. One day you will plant your foot firmly on the foundation and it will not give way. One day you will make a vow which you will not break.

>>12349705
https://medievaleurope.mrdonn.org/popeadrian.html

>>12351917

>>12352749
What a terrible font

>>12352785
This may be more your speed: >>12352870

>>12352520
I really want to read his volumes on aesthetics

Have you read them? What did you think of them?

>>12351031
i fucking love this shit thanks anon im dklsfhjkdjsw

>>12351091
Beauty obscures truth. The Truth is there is no absolutely standard of beauty. Beauty is entirely subjective to the observer.

>>12352509
You don't deserve misery anon. Just because the world values certain traits doesn't mean you aren't beautiful just the way you are.

>>12353014
Or in other words,
>A SEVENTEEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL IS NEVER EVER IN HER PRIME!
>I AM IN MY PRIME!!
>I AM IN MY PRIME!!!

>>12353033
You can be in your prime at 17 just as easily as 60. Everyone experiences life differently.

>>12353041
Go to bed, Macron. Your wife needs you.

>>12351917
To what end couls beauty serve, if not the truth? And what else could be called beautiful except the truth? To equate truth with beauty transforms the tedious pursuit of reason into a passionate endeavor of love. All men love beauty. If truth is made beautiful, only then will all men love truth.

>>12349705
Fucking retarded. More psued than the schizo wojak poster.

>>12352979
I read volume 1 so far. It's very thorough and clear. He has a way of looking at things in the arts that I've not come across before. He presents art and beauty as objective and makes a solid argument to that.

>>12353014
Precisely. Beauty is a sense of relationship. If truth is understood to be beautiful, then only the truth will truly be pleasing. So, when you make truth the epitome of beauty, the whole world is brought into harmony.

>>12353106
Post your writing and philosophy.

>>12353146
I don't, because I know my writing and philosophy are dumb.

>>12353033
What is this I am in my prime thing? Ive seen it referenced twice now

Being a child doesn't necessarily mean those things but I understand

>>12353174
WHERE'S THE BLOODY JOKES!?

>>12351091
Not to diminish the discussion your post has lead to, but technically the OP didn't equate truth with beauty. He was saying that only certain men see a woman as beautiful, just like how only certain men see the truth as the truth. That's not necessarily equating the two.

The sentiment is nice, but it's as if you're going out of your way to sound like you're from the 17th century. Stop using old language, it's contrived.

>>12349705
Well written but sounds like some smug asshole with a superiority complex. With more context it could be great, who knows.

>>12352393
>Science denies spirituality, while Christianity accepts only its own spirituality
Well-put. This summarizes my affirmation of mysticism in contrast with science/religion. I agree though that the distinction can be drawn further (and more generally) to a refutation of institutionalism and dogma.
I might call myself an "independent spiritual seeker"--I was brought up under religion, renounced it at a younger age, and am gradually coming into my own brand of spirituality. What's drawn me to mysticism is that (perhaps like the OP) it acknowledges the validity of truth in its literal and non-literal forms, and embraces the ability of art to, in some way, express the inexpressible. A running theme in modern scientific discourse seems to be that what cannot be expressed in literal terms is untrue, or that anything that cannot be proven is false. I feel in a way that science has lost the curiosity that once motivated the scientific enterprise, and the humility that made that possible. Here's a relevant excerpt from the paper I mentioned:
>[Scientific] theories may not venture too far from my path, but the physicist’s conjecture is of an entirely different species than mine. The physicist’s tale is of the development of matter; mine is of the development of the mind, consciousness, or what some call the soul. But all the better if the scientist and the mystic agree by radically different methods, as this shows their mutual revelation of truth beyond any worldly methodology. Woe to the scientist who fails to realize that he and the mystic follow the same star! He is Walt Whitman’s learn’d astronomer of figures, who has forgotten the mystical charm of the stars which originally led him to astronomy. He stands among many other dispossessed selves who, in some way, have forgotten their origins in pursuit of their destiny.
I wrote this piece partly to confront certain views of the mind that increasingly hold sway in scientific and scientifically-minded circles, namely those which deny the existence of consciousness and [free] will. I'm not sure even whether the argument I put forth is true, but it proposes a novel account of how the universe came to be and our position in it, from a standpoint where you take consciousness and free will as necessary features of the universe and life within it. If you're interested in the full thing, or some more excerpts, let me know and I can put it on a pastebin or something.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts, and for carrying on the conversation. Mysticism certainly isn't mainstream nowadays, but like you I hope it'll find a resurgence and people will begin thinking more for themselves, at least when they find the freedom to do so.

>>12353264
I didn't really read the OP very closely desu, i just hear the sentiment fairly often and while it appeals to me, it doesn't make sense.

>>12353964
Mysticism is the individuals' path, and will see a resurgence the same as many of the old ways. The ancient paths, what remains, may also make themselves known to modernity... or whatever tag we'll use to call "today" today in the era after post-"postmodernism."

>I for one would love to see a pastebin, from any anon willing to make one.
Can't say I agreed with the views therein, but I'd read the Gaia pastebin on /b/ ~12 years ago and it was worthwhile to check against my own perceptions.

AFAICS, all paths lead to the same spectrum. Albeit different colours. Mine is similar to shamanism and a cut of mysticism, although more focused on the magical aspects.

>>12351910
Post the whole thing anon

>>12354046
>>12354122
Here's a link to the whole thing. https://pastebin.com/Y5KcA9zq It's split into sections so if the whole thing is too cumbersome you can check out whatever you're interested in.

>>12351604
nice true world cope brainlet lmao fuckin die in the gutter please

>>12349705
Pretty good.

>>12349705
FUCKING effortposters forcing me to revisit this shithole again

>>12349705
99 posts are written by monkey-brained retards and then the 100th is a diamond in the rough... this is why it's so hard to leave this place behind.

>>12354373
Very thought provoking read.
I particularly liked this:

>The self’s unity within,
>its original unity,
>is consciousness,
>whose absolute form is omniscience.
>The self’s unity beyond,
>its destined unity,
>is free will,
>whose absolute form is omnipotence.
>Both are one in absolute unity.

9/10.

>>12353033

>>12349705
I'm going to disagree with the pseud parade ITT. OP, your sentences don't actually mean anything. A sage does not embrace truth, and it is not plainly before him. He seeks it, through hard work, just like anyone else. Sages come in all kinds, and some of them aren't twee mystics. And your last sentence is 100% ripoff of Mark, which is contradicted by Paul in Corinthians who put childish things behind him.

Please, try writing something actually insightful.

>>12354861
I hope everyone in this thread is being sarcastic.

>>12354861
He seeks it but does not embrace it? Do you mean he never finds it? Or perhaps you mean that he does not quite embrace it but rather looks at it from a short distance, not straying too near out of reverence and acute awareness of his own imperfection. Now I wonder, after he has sought it, as you say, assuming he has found it, is it not plainly before him, or is it still veiled? Is this what you mean to say? The OP did not say that it does not require hard work to become a sage or to see truth, in fact, if it was so easy why should anyone need to be reminded that it is there for those who look for it?

Why do you say "sages come in all kinds"? Do you mean to say that a sage is part of a species--that there are some sages with short hair, others with long, some with perhaps six or seven fingers on each hand, even. But are not all sages alike in their love of truth and consistency? You strike me as a contrarian, like a boy who plays with his food--fiddling around with it until it looks even less appetizing them before, and then refusing to eat it for this reason. "Look, it is ruined," you will say, "I don't want to eat." Then afterwards you will complain that you are hungry, silently condemning everyone for your empty stomach. You would not simply eat your nourishment and be grateful for it.

>>12356304
>brainlet diogenes
This thread is an embarrassment.

>>12356626
You speak in obscurities and atomic grumblings, my dear foe.

>>12353014
>>12351942
>>12351604
>language games, semantic pedantry, quoting translations, and definition shifting
oh boy i sure love these kinds of discussions on /lit/

>>12353106
at least he had the balls to post his writing.

>>12354861
Jesus > Paul

>>12349705