/lit/ - Literature

>>17254539
Take your meds.

>>17254539
no, hegel attempted to grasp the ineffable nature of the logos. How could he be the demiurge? I don’t think you understand what the demiurge is.

>>17254539
Meds, now.

>>17254539
Avatarā of the Demiurge

>>17254583
the idea is is that he is misleading people with a false parody of the truth, just as OT god is supposedly misleading people with heaven, a parody of pleroma

>>17254539
His thought is fundamentally demiurgic, yes. But you have to spend years studying to know why. Start with Nimrod de Rosario.

>>17254555
>>17254585
don't listen to these retards. /lit/ is infested with hylics

>>17254601
Yeah, but he isnt an all powerful being confusing humans, he’s just hegel

>>17254612
i dont know spanish. just simplify it and explain.

>>17254632
>aint nobody got time for them big ten dollar words, give it to me straight doc

nah do the work retard. there's a translation of rosario's Gnostic Fragments online.

>>17254612
Kys LARper

>>17254627
theres something about his eyes that make me doubt this. hes at least an as above so below manifestation of YHWH. but i guess that happens whenever theres a power structure with someone on top. or whenever theres a... oh no... a slave master dialectic??? guys...

>>17254627
>he isnt an all powerful being confusing humans, he’s just hegel

>>17254539
>this description of hegel at the end perfectly alligns with the common representation of the demiurge
It was just an insult. Schop didn't like catholicism; he liked some stuff on Baltasar Gracián, and others, but that was because of his ascetic views.

>"dispenses with reason" could also be interpreted as dispensing of logos
No, logos > reason, just like "water -as an abstract- > the entire set (sea, lake, rivers, etc.)".
Also, Hegel "material views" are abstract, not concrete. Philosophically speaking, Schop is right when he says that Hegel's theory is based on nothing (or "thin air"), because dialectics doesn't work when faced with concrete reality (cf. Theses on Feuerbach, from Marx).

Holy fuck.
Hegel is The Nobody.

>>17254736
jesus you don't think dialectics is supposed to be predictive, do you?

>>17254759
I'm not talking about that. I'm saying that hegelian methodology doesn't work when faced with reality. You can read some of the wienerian and monodian critiques on dialectics if you want to see what i mean; i have no interest on sumarize their account on that.

>>17254793
i literally have no idea who those people are

>>17254811
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Monod
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener

>>17254736
>It was just an insult
highly specific insult that uses highly specific gnostic imagery from a time when gnosticism wasnt popular
>logos > reason
reason is a translation of logos. at the very least in this context they mean the same thing.

im smelling hylic misdirection

>>17254821
>biologist and mathematician can't into speculative german metaphysics

yawn

>>17254845
>reason is a translation of logos
LMAO. You internet trad illiterates will never make it. Learn some basic greek so you can differentiate abstraction from fuction, you ignorant donkey.

>>17254845
if you're the OP, your intuition is correct but it goes deeper than simply hegel dangling the promise of absolute knowledge (which is often mischaracterized as such, more on that later), and no, hegel's system is not irrational, it's actually because of its air-tight rationality (with respect to itself) that it is demiurgic.

here's some hints:

sophia's incontinence/autoerotic longing to access the inaccessible Other = the abstract becoming concrete

the dialectic relationship between necessity and contingency vs. the "need" for the aeons to generate in pairs/syzygies

and so forth

>>17254811
go back

>>17254866
no his intuition is correct if a bit bumbling, faggots like you posturing like you're that much farther down the road are just jerking off in a motel 6

>>17254876
is this about hegels system being self referantial and thus incestious, and thus degenerative? like how sophias autoerotic affair lead to the demiurge (lesser and lesser versions of the pleroma, because there is no genetic variation? and so every copy degrades?)
>the "need" for the aeons to generate in pairs/syzygies
so that they dont degenerate?

is this the right route? is the answer litteraly to have sex so youre not self obsorbed and incestual? why didnt sophia obey? i like how youre presenting this as a puzzle and all but can you explain? at least the part about
>necessity and contingency

hegels system is definitely not rational in that it isnt like formal logic cuz it allows for contradictions. i dont know exactly what hegels system is in a solid formalized way. can you explain what this air tight system is?

>>17254994
take your meds. You don't even know what the words you are using means.

>>17254539
Capitalism is the Demiurge
Hegel worships the Demiurge

>>17254994
>is this about hegels system being self referantial and thus incestious, and thus degenerative?

more like its onanistic, the Idea trying to give birth to itself from itself, subordinating what comes from outside to its own programmatic law.

incestuous works, though. reality is incestual: in that, every point in space is literally an iteration of the prime monad = Demiurge (this is one of Nimrod's central ideas)

sophia tries to access the inaccessible without concession to her Outside (her partner aeon, syzygos). she wants to access (the principle of) Variation without suffering Variability, does that make sense?

>hegels system is definitely not rational in that it isnt like formal logic cuz it allows for contradictions

correct, but hegel's point is always that contradiction is a moment of truth. think of the One like a zygote that introduces an "artificial" division in itself (Sophia) so as to evolve itself by itself, as it relates these different parts of itself to its lost (retroactive) unity.

>>17254994
>is this the right route? is the answer litteraly to have sex so youre not self obsorbed and incestual?

sex is actually another s

>>17254994
>is this the right route? is the answer litteraly to have sex so youre not self obsorbed and incestual?

sexuality is a symptom of this incestuous self-division. life is sexuated because its identity with itself is deadlocked. that's why most gnostics rejected it.

hegel's describing the mechanism by which a kind of pseudo-difference is "artificially" induced within the solipsistic parameters of identity.

how thought generates itself from its own presuppositions, themselves generated by the very process of generation = sophia described as an "auto-fecundating" womb

>>17255073
>hegel's point is always that contradiction is a moment of truth
can you explain? preferably by relating it to how he thinks being and nothing are one and the same? are all contradictions of opposites one and the same?
> think of the One like a zygote that introduces an "artificial" division in itself (Sophia) so as to evolve itself by itself
this sounds exactly like the dialectic. the thesis evolves by negating itself and creating the antithesis and has sex via contradicting each other and the synthesis is born. hegel also emphasized how the opposites were actually one and the same right? like the One. cant the One only reproduce onanistically then? is hegels system true for even the pleroma then? is hegels logic true logos?

>>17255162
being and nothing mutually implicate each other, sublated as becoming.

to say "being" i inscribe a space in which it is said (the non-being "against which" being exists). being = nothingness. to be and to be alone is to be nothing, and to be nothing is in a fundamental sense to be the only thing that is.

the movement kicks off from there.

>thesis, antithesis, synthesis

no such thing, this unity is always imposed on things after the fact, not in the moment.

hegel isn't talking about a process as its happening in real time, but as it always HAS TO HAPPEN as a function of how thought orients itself in the world. that's why its air tight: because thought can't help but spontaneously organize chaos. it will always construct the intelligibility it needs to be adequate to the movement that it is.

the One is not onanistic, it is the principle of individuation, not identity.

>>17255128
>that's why most gnostics rejected it.
because it puts the monad into the position of the masturbator/incestuous self-divisor instead of the demiurge? is it masturbation all the way down?

>>17254539
holy based

>>17255200
no, because it's a symptom of a monad deadlocked by its own ontological impotence. zizek calls it: the impossibility of the void to remain itself as itself. or: the impossibility of possibility, and the possibility of impossibility.

the One/Bythos doesn't split itself from itself to generate the Aeons, it generates the Aeons as light-worlds complete unto themselves which circulate around an invisible dynamo (the Father), a center which Sophia transgresses against in her "passion for access"

i know it's hard to think the difference but if the Bythos is just another monism, then we just push the problem back a step. you have to think a difference that transcends any kind of framework of identity.

the demiurge generates difference, the Father DIVERSITY

>>17255250
>i know it's hard to think the difference but if the Bythos is just another monism, then we just push the problem back a step. you have to think a difference that transcends any kind of framework of identity
>the One is not onanistic, it is the principle of individuation, not identity
so it is masturbation all the way down and the real One is the rule of masturbation? like not a specific product or producer but the whole function? isnt that a framework of identity? does it transcend even that?
>which circulate around an invisible dynamo
what the hell does this mean and how do we know this?
>a center which Sophia transgresses against in her "passion for access"
do all the aeons do this or is sophia somehow different?
>the demiurge generates difference, the Father DIVERSITY
what

cool pics btw

>>17255353
>so it is masturbation all the way down and the real One is the rule of masturbation?

maybe you can call the One as something like groundless production, and not product or producer. just stay far away from a deleuzian interpretation of that.

>what the hell does this mean and how do we know this?

look at pic related. the hole in the center is made up by the rest of the structure, but at the same time the structure revolves around that hole. imagine each point as an Aeon. sooner or later it'll click.

sophia is the aeon of incontinence. since she is the last produced in the valentinian system (before Christ-Jesus and the Kristos iirc), she is something like the inner thought of God at its most extreme extension, hence why she is possessed by the greatest need to know him

>difference and diversity

difference means two things differentiated according to some common criterion, diversity means two things which are themselves their own criterion, self-existent. that is what it means to be a god.

>>17255422
thanks. i wonder if this whole thing could have been any other way, assuming it is the way it is

>>17255495
seek knowledge and escape the inferno

>>17254658
Oh no! What the fuck did you do?!?!

>>17254539
No, stop falling for heresies that went extinct hundreds of years ago (for good reason).

Hegel talks about Geist. Thus he's the very opposite of any demiurgic narratives. His dialectic is inward, not imposed by the demiurge. What is this LARPing?