/lit/ - Literature

>>17406278
Tldr, my consciousness operates in one central space while i fucc my dicc in your thicc spicc recctum, then spray it in your bowels.

>>17406278
Why did Hegel produce Marx when Hegel hated communism? He literally attacked Plato for supporting it.

>>17406278
I view my consciousness as a sort of series of small gay lightning bolts

>>17406278
this is exactly what smoking weed feels like
check out lacan and zizek my friend

my consciousness is an amorphous blob. I can focus on certain parts of it at a time, but never the whole thing.

>>17406288
because Marx was just that much of a retard

>>17406285
i've noticed on /lit/ there's always these terrible and unfunny posts responding rapidly after any thread is created

I'm not sure I'm entirely following, but something like Fichte? The I creates the Non-I which limits it and acts as an object.

>>17406278
>you don't experience life as subject/object
t. Phenomenology

>>17406288
hegelian thought gave birth to the kind of imprecise, confused, irrational, anti-empirical thought that was necessary for marxism.
when your thoughts are confused you never know what can result from them.

>>17407904
based

>My consciousness

Protip you don't "have" it, you "are" it.

>>17406278
I think about it all the time and am close to losing my sanity.

>>17408098
There's no distinction between subject and object in reality, the subject and object are one and the same, hope this clears things up a bit for you Anon.

phenomenology, husserl, heidegger

>>17408116
It doesn't, I want to break free

>>17408208
Tried religion?

>>17407626
Zoomers. They shall all go to hell.

>>17408116
We are the movement between the subject and the object but we can logically distinct them. The instance that distincts them though is again in between subject and object, and then we can objectify that instance, just to see that there must be another instance between and so on. So yeah, in a way we are the unity of subject and object yet we can never witness or perceive or rationalize that instance. It flees in time but we must presume it.

>>17408571
>It flees in time but we must presume it.
It is totally unconditioned, and exists outside of time so to speak. It brings to mind the old question of the tree that falls in the forest, I'm sure you know what I mean.

>>17407904
holy actually based, but not-yet-deconstruction pilled

>>17406288
Why do you think Marx' logic is Hegelian?
I'm quite sure it isn't, he just used Hegel as a fetish, and Marxists parrot "if you want to understand das Kapital you have to read Wissenschaft der Logik, man" to this day.

>>17408582
Yes. I think it comes down to what another anon said earlier. We are that thing (we can call it consciousness), we don't have it. Thus we can not make use of it nor deny it except in death.

>>17408911
"Death" is a relative term, when you really think deeply about it.

>>17406278
>Any philosophy that discusses the mechanics of consciousness in similar fashion?

Read Husserl's Logical Investigations, On the Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal Time and Experience and Judgement.
Husserl wouldn't talk about a centralized space tho because that might suggest some metaphysical bias, he'll talk about consciousness as a passive synthesis of active synthesizes (i.e. a seemingly paradoxical weaving of multiple acts into a flow experienced as a single continuous phenomena).

>>17407904
Brainlet take.

>>17408571
>We are the movement
So we're not the subject? What is the subject?

>>17408923
I thought about that and came to the conclusion that while the logic of consciousness does not stop, just like all subjective-transcendental things like history, universe, God, love, ethics and so on won't stop, the very singular consciousness that is in concrete movement with all these things will indeed stop. So I'll be dead and that's just it. A new I will arise but it doesn't concern me.

>>17408964
>A new I will arise but it doesn't concern me.

Think about what you just said, Anon...

>>17406278
Plato gets at this question and other questions of consciousness in Theaetetus

>>17408975
Why? Does a random pleb from the 13th century concern you in your personal life? I don't see it.

>>17406278
Hi OP. Only sensible reply in the thread so far is >>17408925
I would also recommend Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception. He critiques this "mouse-pointer" or "searchlight" picture of attention as one-sided, because the object itself also plays a part in the movement and develomnet of attention.

"We discover
beneath intelligence and beneath perception a more fundamental function: “a vector moving in every direction, like a searchlight, by which we
can orient ourselves toward anything, in ourselves or outside of ourselves,
and by which we can have a behavior with regard to this object. But
again, the comparison to a searchlight is not a good one, since it takes
for granted the given objects upon which intelligence projects its light,
whereas the core function we are speaking of here – prior to making us
see or know objects – first more secretly brings them into existence for us. So let us say instead, by borrowing a term from another work,95 that the
life of consciousness – epistemic life, the life of desire, or perceptual life
– is underpinned by an “intentional arc” that projects around us our past,
our future, our human milieu, our physical situation, our ideological situation, and our moral situation, or rather, that ensures that we are situated
within all of these relationships. This intentional arc creates the unity of
the senses, the unity of the senses with intelligence, and the unity of sensitivity and motricity. And this is what “goes limp” in the disorder" - He then goes on to explain what he means by that don't worry.

>>17408961
the movement between subject and object is still the activity of a (you). Hegels point is just that we don't posit reality based on subjective criteria from within (say, Kantian categories), nor have objective criteria imprinted on us from without (naive empiricism), but that "inside" and "outside" are categories that only have a meaning as dialectical opposite within the dance reason dances with itself as it tries to figure out where it stands and how it functions.

>>17406278
>Has anyone else thought of their consciousness as operating within a single centralized space and every phenomenal event is occurring within this centralized space?
Yes, this is one of the main points that the Hindu philosophy school Advaita Vedānta make about consciousness. Their main philosopher/theologian Adi Shankara was a prolific author and commentator and he wrote extensively about this around the turn of the 8th-9th century
>I was thinking earlier about how all we’re really exposed to is sense impressions and our relationships to them on a subject-object basis.
It is actually the intellect which is exposed to and which engages in subject-object relationships, consciousness doesn't do so itself, the light of consciousness allows the intellect to do this when the intellect is illumined by the light of consciousness (awareness), this awareness is itself free from the subject-object relationship, it is only acts as the background and basis for the subject-object distinctions of the intellect to appear in itself, within the undivided space of eternal awareness. You are aware of subject-object relations, the subject-object relation is not aware of itself, because that would involve the subject of the relationship at once being the subject of the subject-object relationship with the original object, as well as being the subject of an additional subject-object relationship with itself so that it may know both terms of the subject-object relation which is necessary for the subject-object relationship to be self-knowing. This is impossible though because the subject simultaneously being its own object is a contradiction in terms, like the simultaneous presence of heat and the absence of heat. The ultimate background of all things itself consists of self-revealing awareness which is itself intrinsically free from subject-object distinctions and which is unchanging, immediate and self-revealing, which is why its light is constant while the subject-object distinctions change. This self-revealing awareness is different in nature from the subject knowing itself as its own object, the former can be self-knowing while the latter cannot be because the former is a perfect and completely homogenous unicity (or is non-dual) and so it doesn't consist of any dual distinction of observer and thing observed. The subject of each relation is defined by its relation to the object, but awareness or consciousness simply is without needing to be defined by anything else, it is the necessary foundation and basis of all particular knowledge, through which they have their being.
>Your attention acts as a mouse for the interface of consciousness to choose which object it needs to “dialectically” relate to. It locks onto one target at a time.
Consciousness is actually non-volitional. Volition and its acts appear in consciousness which is how you can tell that they are different from consciousness.

>>17409235
Guenonfag detected

>>17409276
>Nooo you can't read that author, I call everyone who reads that author a fag!

>>17407904
based
FUCK aristotle and hegel
all my homies love plato and goethe

>>17409100

as >>17408925
thank you anon.
And yes, absolutely, Merleau-Ponty would perfectly fit in this line of inquiry. The searchlight model is my go to example when I want to dumb down what he meant by being against a mechanical view of human beings (while obviously he accepted that human beings are biological mechanism).

we are moving towards full realization of truth by the collision of consciousnesses

>>17406278