/lit/ - Literature

>>14554829
I am thing 1.

>>14554829
no

>>14554829
yes

>>14554829
Sure but it has various characteristics which when (it is necessarily) in contrast with others, it is a multiplicity, which from this act independently in form, physical or mental. This is not a ritualistic statement but merely a way of explanation.

>>14554829
Nah bro pieces are basic

>>14554870

Shut up nerd

>>14554829
Spacetime is the singular and only object that exists.

>>14554829
No nothing is a single thing. Every "thing" is just a symbolic structure that we have labelled it as to attempt to structure our experience. Integers don't exist, they are an abstraction.

>>14554870
*dualistic

>>14554936
Shut the fuck up faggot, I've never once been successfully bullied simply because of my naturally extroverted charisma, height and good looks- though that has made many jealous.

>>14554829
Yeah, I remember my first acid trip...

>>14554829
and that thing is Brahman

>>14554829
Based.

>>14554956
>attempt to structure
We don't attempt, we do so implicitly. It is Leibniz' or Kant's representations which explain this. At best one may deny the figurative, even then there would be a psychological reaction to this, but he can never truly deny the thing for which he sees in experience.

And that thing is my balls :3

>>14554829
Technically yes, subjectively no. We are all a single thing in that we possess the characteristics necessary to maintain a form which materializes on our universal plane. We are different in how that matter comprises the form it fulfills. Be that there are many forms, not all forms are the same, but the general form of abiding by the Logos and it’s rules dictates that we share a common ancestor with the Godhead.
>>14554999
No one gives a fuck what it’s called you sophist

>>14554829
>everything is a single thing
>I look down at my desk
>see a cup of coffee and a pencil, obviously two distinct things
LOL nice try, faggot. Debunked.

>>14555010
Kant has nothing to do with this. I'm not describing the nuemenal world. I'm describing our phenomenal perception of it, which is not set in stone and is culturally created.

>>14555020
>t. Diogenes

>>14554829
It's the parallels man! Likeness is the source on which all depend! God is a mirror!

>>14554829
one day I will merge with the AI and look down on sad humans who can only have one thought at a time

>>14554829
Based and Parmenidespilled

>>14555037
>I'm not describing the nuemenal world.
Neither am I, and in this case neither is Kant, but that the sensual is based around innate ideas of the *sensual*. To further explain, Kant is the first to really develop the idea of unconscious/conscious yet for him both must perceive the sensual(among other things):

"The field of sensuous intuitions and sensations of which we are not conscious, even though we can undoubtedly conclude that we have them; that is, obscure representations in the human being (and thus also in animals), is immense. Clear representations, on the other hand, contain only infinitely few points of this field which lie open to consciousness; so that as it were only a few places on the vast map of our mind are illuminated. This can inspire us with wonder over our own being, for a higher being need only call "Let there be light!" and then, without the slightest cooperation on our part... as it were set half a world before his eyes.... Thus the field of obscure representations is the largest in the human being."

IT'S EVERYTHING... A SINGLE THING IS EVERYTHING!

>>14554829
t. Atman

If thats the case; how does it help a human?

thought this was a literary criticism joke about ptsd-from-too-much-theory people who try to make every work they read about post-colonialism and things of that nature

>>14556485
what is post-colonialism?

>>14556394
Groundlessness is an empty in itself, it is not a ground. It is the presence of the ground.

Om Namah sarvam sama rajam peya maha sarva sama dhausata --

"Om is the ground of Being. Because of the two Truths (Truth and non-truth), Om is the eternal. Because of the non-being (the Unbeing), Om is the Eternal. O maha, one sees the real"

THE SUN IS THE INTERNAL CENTER of the universe and is thus revealed as reflected in the form of the sun.

>why yes, this is my favourite thread on /lit/ right now, how could you tell?

>>14554829
Fact : you can't refute this

>>14554984
Pentalistc*

>>14557055
As opposed to an external center?

>>14554829
Yes, and it's called cope.