/lit/ - Literature

>>18974283
I don't get it, could someone put it in brainlet terms for me?

>>18974290
1. Laruelle isn't a philosopher of difference, he's interested in the thing itself as the thing itself that it is, what I am isn't defined by what I'm not.

2. He isn't interested in philosophies of becoming my "best self", a creative nothing, a schizophrenic rhizome. We're withdrawing from the world, not diving into its energies.

3. He is interested in the World as something impenetrable to thought, not as something that is necessarily disclosed, revealed, or made transparent to us.

4. He is interested in relations that are what they are only on their side. He doesn't try to map a bunch of relations on a single plane.

>>18974312
>He isn't interested in philosophies of becoming my "best self", a creative nothing
What does it mean to withdraw from the world and rejecting "becoming", isn't it a form of escapism or complacency?
>the World as something impenetrable to thought
In the sense of skepticism, some kind of epistemological nihilism?

>>18974361
What Laruelle rejects is the "Principle of Sufficient Philosophy", or the pretense to absolute sufficiency which, itself, is what
murders the flow of Becoming. In brainlet terms; that circularity in philosophy which makes it believe it can speak for anything and everything. This is how world power in general (Laruelle is basically a contemporary Gnostic heretic) operates.

That said, Laruelle is not a philosopher of Becoming.

>epistemological nihilism
Close, but not quite. The World is impenetrable to thought, but thought still speaks of the World and for the World. Laruelle is NOT a "you cannot kno nuffn" type.

Instead of thought spinning its wheels in the epistemological abyss (what you just said), or thought penetrating the World to its core (the Principle of Sufficient Philosophy), thought accesses the world at an angle, it ricochets off the surface of the "Black Universe." It doesn't ACCESS it, but it doesn't NOT access it either.

>>18974412
what is faith for Laruelle? what is practice?

>>18974435
Becoming uncoupled or unmixed with the programs of the World that bind you to systems that leech your thought, body, and mind to feed themselves. Hence, ascetic withdrawal.

His faith is the faith of the Absolute Victim, history's mass graves. There is no Second Coming, there is no absolution, the victim doesn't swell with the promise of a better future. It is precisely because he is shat out of History's back end that he has escaped History. He has no hope, but for that reason, he doesn't need it.

>>18974283
Gotta earn those philosophybuxx

This is painful to read. Whoever wrote it should kill themselves.

>>18974467
It's perfectly coherent. You're just not familiar with the terminology.

>>18974283
Read the section on Laruelle in Nihil Unbound

>>18974412
So philosophy isn't a perfect tool, but I don't understand how that relates to what you said about becoming "our best selves" vs. withdrawal from the world. Isn't he rejecting philosophy wholesale?
>thought accesses the world at an angle
Maybe it's a weird comparison but isn't this similar to the Jain/Buddhist parable about the blind men and the elephant?

>>18974452
>is not a philosopher of Becoming.
>Hence, ascetic withdrawal.
then how would you 'know thyself' without experiencing your energies within the worldly sphere? when we create, we disclose ourselves and approach the real; you made this thread, is it not an opening of a potential understanding that invites others to open themselves as well?

does he (anti)philosophize on the topic of the European mystical tradition? what was/is that?

>>18974494
Ray Brassier is a pseud

>>18974312
He sounds like an anti-Deleuze. Why were DnG so interested in his work? I thought I read an excerpt somewhere that Deleuze was quite keen on Laruelle's stuff in the 80s, has Laruelle changed since then or is there some bridge between the two that transcends their basic ontology?

>>18974283
“Academics” get the rope

>>18974503
>Isn't he rejecting philosophy wholesale?
Yes. The point is to reject philosophy in its lust for closure, but not philosophical thinking as a material to propel us beyond that lust (because philosophical thinking is all we have). In brainlet terms: adopting the method without the "methodology." Adopting the method without the academy.

>Maybe it's a weird comparison but isn't this similar to the Jain/Buddhist parable about the blind men and the elephant?
Close, not quite. That parable implies there is universal Truth stratum that we all perceive imperfectly and provisionally, and if we only had a God's POV we could see the elephant for what it is... etc.

Instead of a bunch of men each groping one elephant, imagine instead that every man gropes his own elephant, and for that very reason, it is within the power of every man to know it in full.

>>18974569
Have you read that chapter? It functions as an entire sort of summary of one aspect of Laruelle's thought, which is a difficult thing to do. Brassier affixes to it the nihilist interrogation he uses in every part of the book but it's still very informative.

>>18974581
This sounds similar to Jean-Luc Nancy's Being Singular Plural thesis. Have you read it? If so, is it accurate to say that Nancy and Laruelle share a sort of fundamental epistemology/ontology?

>>18974513
Laruelle instrumentalizes immanence and these energies, meaning: there is a way to use or "weaponize" the programs of the World against the World. In brainlet terms: there is a way to think immanence without it having to be immanent TO anything (even itself, a la Deleuze).

He is the closest you'll get to a contemporary Medieval heretic (or Late Antiquity heretic, remember that Gnosticism is a cornerstone for him). All rooted in his victimology - the victim burned at the stake testifies not necessarily to something ABOVE the World, but that which is perennially "beneath" it, the ur-victim: always subverting the circle.

He purges mysticism of what he considers the pathologies adequate to it.

His "God" is the Black Universe: the color that is not a color, that is every color, that is the non-color. We're not talking about a mere negation of color.

>>18974570
Either Deleuze misunderstood him (unlikely), or they just respected the rigor of his thought. The dude has been studying philosophy for 50 fucking years, after all.

>>18974581
>imagine instead that every man gropes his own elephant,
Hardcore nominalism? Maybe I misunderstand but it seems almost solipsistic in a sense

>>18974586
I have not, but I won't tell you Laruelle is as revolutionary as he claims in his deepest premises. Schelling's early Absolute as an "absolute indifference point" between Mind and Nature (being neither Mind nor Nature, being the non-Mind and non-Nature...) is basically Laruelle's One with some qualifications.

Hegel was a brainlet who misunderstood this (in)difference as a sinking into pure undifferentiation. Laruelle takes it the entirely other direction: instead of the night where all cows are black, we have a night in which each cow is incandescent not necessarily with its own light, but its own SPECTRUM (of "light").

>>18974625
Try to imagine a solipsism that nevertheless still effectuates (or has "something to say") about a real World. These are the kinds of twists and intuitive loopdeloops you need to get used to grok Laruelle.

>>18974283
Every 20th century French thinker is a poseur. The only one that wasn't was Merleau-Ponty and that was because he had a good reading of the German philosophers.

>>18974581
>Instead of a bunch of men each groping one elephant, imagine instead that every man gropes his own elephant, and for that very reason, it is within the power of every man to know it in full.
was it (you) saying about each one having his own 'Real'? => universality was the mistake, however at particular set of coordinates there could be an organic cultural exchange, synarchic amplification. I'm thinking here what Sloterdijk called 'atmospheric communities' relating them to places where memetic disclosure is happening.
>>18974602
>to something ABOVE the World, but that which is perennially "beneath" it
what's the difference, are they not meeting at some radical edge, in the Origin?

I'm interested in instrumentality of it: can imageboards be reformed or '''internet culture'''' is a binder to what has already passed. everyone having its own Real (would that be a Higher Soul?) and is in the process of working with it, but is there a possibility for emergence of meta-axiomatics. (what I mean is making the shitposting central an origin of understanding.(perhaps 2ambitious))

>other gnostic thread deleted
Jenny is a tranny, he does it for free

Laruelle anon I assume you're the OP, we can continue the discussion we were having in the other thread ITT if you want.

>>18974716
>was it (you) saying about each one having his own 'Real'?
Correct. is there a distinction between healthy universality and "pathological" universality? I'd say so. I've said before: Laruelle's project wants to resuscitate the old systems of identity without any of their (pseudo-)Platonic baggage. Identity without the burden of oneness. Or: universality without worldhood.

>Origin
No origin in Laruelle, no primordial Identity we are linking up with to sublimate the World, I am myself already the Identity that must be given to the World (kind of contrary to some Gnostic streams, more on that later possibly). But yes, I am an edge, a radical one, in my immanence I am the thread the World shouldn't pull. "O wonder of wonders, that the Gospel is!" [paraphrased] - Marcion

>can imageboards...
Can imageboards be a material and occasion for liberation, because of AND IN SPITE OF their nature? Yes. Everything is useful. Laruelle is a Gnostic pragmatist.

>>18975286
Yes. I hate jannies so much. Will respond shortly. If this thread goes down, make a thread asking about Jonas's book to tranny janny-proof it.

>>18975286
Ok, I read it. Very, very good posts.

1. To be honest with you, I'm starting to draw up a system that reconciles hard dualism with the elegance and subtleties of "classical" Gnosticism. The One is a negative, and not positive, condition of Evil, in much the same way that a sun-spot inheres in a Sun without the Sun "meaning" to generate it. I'd say Laruelle radicalizes even arch-dualism.

2. I don't know if you read the schizo wojak post that was made a month ago or so, but your intuition that death signifies the ultimate removal from all coordinates on Being is on point, and that's the ticket: just like the Kenoma and Pleroma do not intersect and so the return is automatic (nothing intrinsically prevents us from MAKING it automatic), so is death unconstrained by the meaning of death WITHIN being. "There is a death for the dead and a death for the living." Because the return is automatic because we've never left, death is liberation because it was never that which truly keeps us here. There is no fundamental constraint on what death is "supposed" to be.

Maybe Laruelle is the key here: the longing of the Marcionite for a Love he is categorically cut off from understanding is a non-relation. It does not have its origin in that acosmic Good, and yet it is in some sense analogous to it, adequate to it, without determining or corresponding to it. We're in the absolute deep zone of abstraction here.

>>18974283
That seems very fascist.

>>18975286
>>18975610

Can someone link the warosu?

>>18975628
>>/lit/thread/S18973553

>>18975628
Another way to put it would be: what if death is a unilateral horror, what if that terrible sight of a corpse's eyes simply doesn't apply anymore to what has left it "behind"? I'm not aestheticizing death, just drawing out the fact of my own non-relation to my body to its extreme conclusion.

>>/lit/image/eMrw4iu2Ny6ThIuGYaDv9g

I mean I've felt the same intuition. People say "sleep is the cousin of death", as if when sleeping you sink only a little bit into the abyss, and when dead you plunge. Who is to say that is the case? What if it's a difference in kind and not degree?

>>18975644
Why isn't warosu working for me? It just keeps checking my browser forever.

>>18975665
Yeah me too. Just try again later.

>>18975508
>Identity without the burden of oneness. Or: universality without worldhood.
the Dyad is individuation and differentiation as a vector. and the goal is wholeness as a being (in) its own immanence: immanence+. immanence+'insufficiency of reason': that is what I got from the Schelling-Hamann Axis, that insufficiency itself is Mystery or Faith: an unobjectifiable fountain emiting a life-giving paradox.
>Can imageboards be a material and occasion for liberation, because of AND IN SPITE OF their nature? Yes.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq64zpcdInM
>Sturm und Dank type beat I mean yeah dude
wait I'm about to drop a huge pill. wait..
wait.. wait..
>wait... ..
>..
we are basically living in a neon genesis where Evangelions are rect(ified). po(o)p culture jamming intersections to 'resuscitate the old systems of identity' . Adam in the basement of anime is the God Rape moment. Shin-jii (boi) opening neon eyes towards the world of his own singularity where Adam just embraced sexual monism (alternatively known as gender Hegelianism) and is le happi to tend earth with his back-buddy. and what about the basement, one would ask? 'lmao never happened.'

Major prefiguring of my upcoming thread here, spooky.

>>18975757
Just remember to use the same image you always do.

>>18975610
>a system that reconciles hard dualism with the elegance and subtleties of "classical" Gnosticism.
Yes, I've think we've had a discussion on your conception of the One before, where the Demiurge is an inherent function of the One rather than an active emanation of it, am I summarizing it correctly?
From what you're saying here though, is the implication that the One is merely a hypostasis of a larger monad that is Evil? And if the One can be equated to this currently perceivable ontological mode i.e. being, what is Evil? I would've assumed Evil and being were equivocal, but the implication here is that Evil contains being, that it is a superset of being.
>the schizo wojak post that was made a month ago or so
Yes, the corn in the god-shit that you posted below, I didn't fully get it at the time but in retrospect I understand it better. I find it a profoundly liberating thought, even though some will call it nihilistic — perhaps Jonas' assessment of the proximity of Gnosticism and the existentialist alienation from being is applicable here. To think that Being is merely the momentary expression of the anomaly called "ontology", that to exit Being via death is not only the cessation of ontology but the opening up of an ineffable non-ontology (could it be called a supra-ontology?) is the most incredible idea I have ever come across. And it gives full meaning to the idea that Gnosticism is anti-annihilationism, the swallowing of the ocean by the drop, because what could be a stronger affirmation of the individual than the destruction of his very ontological shackles?
This brings to mind a question I had on the role of ego in the gnostic conception of self and the prospect of its post-death survival. I should find the relevant passage but if you know what I'm talking about maybe you can address it.
>so is death unconstrained by the meaning of death WITHIN being
Yes, well said. For all the beautiful metaphors on death poets and mystics have come up with, the fatal flaw of their vision is their inability to describe death from any other point of reference than that from which death is the ultimate unknown. Can any of their imagery be trusted? Even death as the awakening from the dream becomes meaningless from an ontologically transcendent vantage point. It is just "null".
I'm not sure I fully get the analogy with Marcion, however.

>>18974283
Is it true that he btfo the old fart Badiou?

>>18975901
>And if the One can be equated to this currently perceivable ontological mode i.e. being, what is Evil?
necessity. inertia. being stuck in another's discourse. being someone else's projection.
>“Evil is not good's absence but gravity's everlasting bedrock and its fatal chains inert, violent, the suffrage of our days.” ― Geoffrey Hill
there is of course evil as parasitism. an unequal exchange.

>>18975901
Don't think of it as a function, but sustenance. The One is the sustenance of the Devil. What responsibility does the "prey" have for the Devil's metabolism? Laruelle's One is utterly beyond any responsibility for Evil. Hence, negative condition: it is the meta-space of spaces, to be kind of crude. It doesn't "plant" Evil. Evil plants itself. No emanation here implied.

I'm not sure if Being should be equated with Being wholesale, but right now, let's say it is. The One is not the superset or "container" of Evil. I want to arrive at an intuition of Evil which depends on the One for sustenance but is not contained, endorsed, positively permitted... by the One.

Yes, you have made the right intuitive leaps to understand what distinguishes Gnosticism from m-nist drivel.

There's an equivalent triad in Heidegger and Zizek (don't let this nigga tell you he don't have no layered ontology or that gnosticism is bunk):

Zizek:

The quantum Real or Chaos (the One/Muspel)
The Void which transubstantiates the Real into Appearance (the topos or pure presencing of Being, the demiurgic chora)
Appearance (everyday life)

Heidegger:

The Nothing
The degree-zero of occurentness or the Clearing (the chora)
Beings (everyday life)

A non- or pre-ontological = x digested into actuality.

The rest of your intuitions on death are utterly on point. I don't think I'm influencing you, I think it's insane how many people our age bracket are converging on similar ideas and intuitions. Hegel was kind of right in this regard.

>>18975901
What the fuck does any of that mean. What are you even saying

>>18975901
And I wasn't talking about the corn in the god-shit line, but this passage:

>... forget Descartes's demon already (which I still maintain is an ontological – not epistemological - problem), what about his angel? Instead of our senses covering up a true malignance of the real, what if we have a real malignance of the senses concealing a true Outside? The unilateral skull: horror is only effective on our side: There is a death for the dead and a death for the living: “TRUTH IS A LIFE-EATER.”

Not to shill but to clarify. Death as an opening into an non-ontological vista (not in the vulgar Christian sense, death as a psychophilic capstone: a metaphysical realization which sets all things to right) is definitely one of the most incredible ideas I've also come across.

>>18974283
Literally don't. Fucking idiot. Michel Henry said everything he said but better.

Not one Laruelle fag can justify Laruelle's criticism of the Philosophical decision (which is so vague and retarded he's basically stopped talking about it himself) except in stupid ass ethical terms (Philosophy is ebil and totalitarian, Philosophy over-determines Science, Science dindu nuffin) OR explain how Non-thetic immanence is in any way Non-Philosophical when it assumes so much Philosophically in terms of a theory of knowledge and experience. Non-Philosophy is Philosophy gone putrid, given up on all idea of Truth and reduced to playing around with Philosophy as mere material justified only under a pragmatic article of faith that is the axiomatic stipulation of the One. Its the most puerile fad I've seen on the twitter/lit axis for a long time. Fuck Laruelle and fuck you.

>>18976371
Kind of superficial. Ever heard of a pragmatist victimology? Yeah that's what I thought dude.

>>18976379
I could respect you fags if you paid any attention to what the stuff that Laruelle wrote that was worth reading, ie, most of his stuff before Principles of Non-Philosophy. But no, of course you're concerned with the stupid Gnosticicm that is just Michel Henry with the Phenomenology wrung out of him.

>>18976397
I'm really sick of you hipster madfags trouncing into every one of these types of threads to tell us how it is lol. Enlighten us or fuck off.

>>18976402
I don't have anything special to say in terms of "Enlightenment". I'm just asking you if you can justify your critique of the Philosophical decision or your axiomatic positing of the One in terms which are more than just whining about how authoritarian Philosophy is for caring about the Truth rather than treating Thought as mere material to play with.

>>18976421
Don't caricaturize me, Laruelle isn't my philosophy daddy. If we look like babies to you, then show us how it's done, I'm open to being btfo. I don't give a shit otherwise.

>>18976265
>>18976274
Okay, so Evil is a parasitism of Being. This however begs the question of whether Evil is an emergent property of Being, or if there can be a One without Evil. The One conceived as a meta-space is a reunion of an infinite number of possibilities (spaces), so is Evil an anomalous corruption of the One's infinite subsets, or an inevitable consequence of the One being constrained by ontology? The sun spot analogy makes me lean towards the latter.
Laruelle's duality is between the One (monism) and non-ontology, yes?
Is way you are describing Evil (as an independent parasitic phenomenon entirely distinct from the One's subsets) also a dualism, then? How do you qualify Evil's existence independently from the mixture yet dependent on Being for its arising, isn't there a paradox here?
I haven't read either Zizek or Heidegger, I didn't even know Heidegger wrote on that subject.
>how many people our age bracket are converging on similar ideas and intuitions
We're talking about something pretty niche here, I don't think I've ever discussed this anti-ontological perspective with anyone before, but the neognostic revival in general feels like it's genuinely gaining traction, and it doesn't leave the gimmicky impression of a short-lived meme, there's something real about it.
>>18976295
I don't know how I could put it in clearer terms, I'm not particularly eloquent and I don't usually write word salad posts, I think my posts are pretty simplistic and straightforward compared to some other gnostic posters'.
>>18976300
Yes, I think I understand.
>a real malignance of the senses concealing a true Outside
Pretty much what I've always thought, you've articulated it perfectly. The question I've asked myself often though is why the narrowing down of experience into this particular mode of being instead of another but perhaps pondering this is pointless.

>>18976491
The One here isn't constrained by ontology, it would be more appropriate to say that it's the One (or man-in-man as an immanent clone of the One) which ITSELF constrains ontology (ie, frustrates its circularities).

>so is Evil an anomalous corruption of the One's infinite subsets
Yes, you're kind of getting at something here I don't quite yet have the resources to articulate. I'll get back to you on that.

>How do you qualify Evil's existence independently from the mixture yet dependent on Being for its arising, isn't there a paradox here?
That's exactly the intuitive twist you need to make, and that I'm still working on. I'm not crazy here, even Zoroastrianism has shades of privatio boni while, of course, being hard dualist. The Devil can only be a corruption of Being, and yet, the potency for this corruption possesses its own independent existence (but not... paradoxically... independent of that which it corrupts). I will post a relevant passage on this topic shortly.

Heidegger didn't write about any of this stuff. I just put the pieces together. There's a Sun, and on it there's a clearing or topos which consumes and "darkens" the light in which it is situated.

>neognostic revival..
If anything, you've really helped me clarify this ... non-death intuition, idk what to call it. It is genuinely one of the most real and blindingly white whitepills I've ever had the good luck to discover.


>why the narrowing down of experience...
If I could just come down from the clouds from a minute, well, it's just life man. Eating, shitting, working, living, dying. Tough to raise your head above all that.

>>18976550
Some things I'd like to address here but I'm tired and going to sleep, I'll answer tomorrow if the thread's still alive, otherwise look out for the Jonas thread.

>>18976560
Got it. Peace.

>>18976295
He writes clear as crystal, just chalk it up to your unfamiliarity with the topics being discussed.

>>18976491
>whether Evil is an emergent property of Being, or if there can be a One without Evil.
what if there is no 'One' but an intersection of multiplicities? in that case, Evil would be that which is not of Being's signature. and an arch-Evil would be any imposed communitarianism. to use more imaginative language: you look at the night sky, these are all light monads, but some of them won't bring you satisfaction. you won't find in connecting with their light any salvation, any remembrance in the Orphic sense.
perhaps it is just me, but I find talk on the nature of 'the one' rather heavy to my spirit. I don't believe in communal heaven, the idea is wicked to my understanding. the one is nothing. pure potency for the creative dyad.
>malignancy of an Outside
'outside so tentacles or whatever' that kitch-horror mood or how to call it, ''vibe''? I've had a glance at the book called Dark Deleuze. exactly in that vein. it is a cultural phenomenon more similar to a virus or a conjuration that latches on to a generational monad and influences all those in its reach. dark wave music but turned into 'philosophisizing' texts: ontology of leather jackets.
you conjure your Outside by the law of sympathy: you magnetize your Divine. which I understand to be the Alchemical approach and an immense Whitepill as opposed to various brands of monotheism that threaten to invade (you) with its over-defined void.

>>18974283
Sounds like fashy chud philosophy.

>>18976791
Fantastic. Just don't get bogged down by the One talk, the One is an utterly empty positivity, not even worth talking about, truly, just the "root" of an extension, an aporetic soil for anything and everything to bloom

Consider a few things when discussing the Monad:

>>>/lit/thread/S18710771#p18711494
>I maintain that they are answerable and the answer is precisely that Evil being the absence of Good is a false and perverse Monism for many reasons: that the Good suffers a Salafi implosion whereby it can just as easily be said that the Evil is the true Monad and the Good a fringe consequence thereof, that the Good is still said to participate in all that allegedly suffers from its absence in terminally perfidious (Catholic) arguments, that it is simply rephrasing a question into something paradoxically worse than the initial one in that the Good is made ultimately responsible for Evil. Whereas the Evil being likewise Monadic, there being more than one Monad, is actually the meaning of true Monism. The absence of Good is, in fact, Dualism: taking it to Logical conclusion, the absence itself constitutes an eternal irreconcilable other. Whereas an Evil as Monadic as the Monadic Good is, in fact, Monism: that all things are Monads, that nothing cannot be a Monad, that Monads "have no windows" and in knowing everything Dialectically know nothing; a true Monism from the inside-out and the top-down.
>Also, note how in the false Monism of Evil as the absence of Good, Good has literally nothing to stand on, it is allegedly Good simply because there is no alternative, it is ironically sanctioned by everything that blubbery Catholics who propose this idea claim to hate, Form, Reason, Law, everything BUT their "love". Whereas in the true Monism of both Evil and Good being equally Monadic, the latter CANNOT be distinguished from the former by anything BUT their "love" and, moreover, by the true love.

>>>/lit/thread/S17259685
>The Monad and the many per Ne-Si and per Ni-Se are as, if not more, distinct as the Monad and the many are from each other in either perception. Per Ne-Si, the many relate mainly, possible exclusively, to each other, their relation to the Monad being one of at least quantitative deficiency, if not qualitative, whereby each of them is a "part of" the Monad, a continuous outside-in and bottom-up medium culminating in the "individual" of Yaldabaoth: the Monad itself becoming LESS than the sum of its parts, not even an apotheosis of medium at the expense of individuals but the end of medium and individual alike through their mutually-destructive interdependence. Per Ni-Se, the many relate mainly, possibly exclusively, to the Monad, their relation to each other being at least quantitatively tenuous, if not qualitatively so, whereby each of them resembles the Monad, a discrete inside-out and top-down individuation culminating in the "medium" of Pleroma: the Monad itself becoming an explosive subsuming of its parts, not even an apotheosis of the individual at the expense of the medium but the end of even their most fundamental Dyadic distinction through their mutually-dignifying independence.

Consider this too, while you're at it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHat0MQDxtY

I had already seen
Black Ships ate the sky
I was sweet sixteen
The fences folded
And the trees surrounded
Black Ships in the sky
Devouring the clouds
And the thought came to me
Just sweet sixteen and full of night:
Who will deliver me from myself?
Who will deliver me from myself?
Who will deliver me from myself?
Who will deliver me from myself?

And I looked up at the sleeping lion
Black Ships ate the sky
Colours untold
Kissing my eyes
To unmake myself
And to be unborn
To be unborn
And not to see
Black Ships in the sky
With their cypress night
Following in the wake
Of the churning rudders
Of Black Ships in the sky
Cartoon Messiahs became
Cartoon Destroyers

If I was unborn
I would have nothing to be grateful for
I would have never seen love
I would have never held cats
I would have never buried my friends
And prayed for their souls
In reddening churches
I would never have kissed
And I would never have wept
And I would never have seen
Black Ships eat the sky
And I would have been unborn
And not have seen circuses
Whilst watching the flowers
Rise flags made of atoms
Who will deliver me from myself?
Who will deliver me from myself?

Who will deliver me from myself?
Who will deliver me from myself?
Who will deliver me from myself?
Who will deliver me from myself?
Who will deliver me from myself?
Who will deliver me from myself!?
Who will deliver me from myself!?
Who will deliver me from myself!?
Who will deliver me
From Black Ships in the sky!?
From Black Ships in the sky!?
From Black Ships in the sky!?
Black Ships ate the sky
And I am unborn

(I will die for you now)

>>18977088
Please elaborate on your concept of true death in the next thread or the one after that.

>>18977088
Based fucking song.

bump

These threads are so good

>>18977109

Yes.

>>18974283
Is he actually influenced by any religious or esoteric doctrine? Is he intentionally 'gnostic' or is it just a coincidence?

>>18979101
More influenced by the concept of heresy than Gnosticism per se. He isn't writing about Sophia or the Demiurge or anything like that.

>>18976550
I wrote a long post but the page crashed so I'll be a bit more succinct.
>man-in-man as an immanent clone of the One
Could you elaborate on this? I don't understand.
>which ITSELF constrains ontology
This is unclear in my mind: is the One the superset of all possible ontological modes (the infinitude of the aforementioned possibilities of "narrowing down", our experience being one single point on this infinite line)? I think it's clear that the One itself isn't a mere point on the line of Being, since there is no Being outside of the One. In which case the question of who constricts what is perhaps unimportant.
We're getting into abstractions that are difficult to talk about clearly, but I think intuition will serve to elucidate those questions better than incisive rational analysis.
> the potency for this corruption possesses its own independent existence
This is the issue I'm having trouble with. If you assume said potency arises from a dysfunction of Being itself, then you're back to the Valentinian model. For Evil to be this independent corrupting agent or "virus" while at the same time being inseparable from what it invades requires some kind of mechanism I'm having trouble imagining.
>non-death intuition, idk what to call it
I'm glad if I could be of any assistance, I sincerely believe this idea is the most important one it is possible to entertain, the true frontier from which you can't come back once you've realized what it means. As opposed to usual philosophical theorizing, it's not a matter of possibilities anymore, its complete removal and remoteness from systems, symbols, meanings, intelligibility and logic itself, beyond the horizon of Being, its utter alienness, makes it not a hypothesis but an inevitability. This current narrowing down of the possibilities of experience into a single ontological nexus necessarily implies its unfolding at some point or another: if there CAN be something else than this, then there WILL be something else, which implies that there will be everything else (and even more than that). The escape is inescapable, that is precisely why it's the whitest of all pills. I'm happy to be able to talk about this openly since the idea has always been gnawing at the all the systems I've examined but always remaining inexpressible and below the surface so far.
>well, it's just life man
Of course, from our frame of reference, there is no explanation possible. But to take a step back and realize the extreme arbitrariness of it all throws a wrench in a lot of metaphysical assumptions.
Sorry if I've deviated a bit from what we were talking about originally to ramble about the death thing.

>>18976791
>what if there is no 'One' but an intersection of multiplicities?
You mean an infinitude of "monads"? That seems a bit similar to the line made of points I brought up here >>18979369, or are you talking about something else?
If Evil is not what is of Being's signature, and Being is "this" monad, doesn't this imply that one monad's evil is another one's light?
I completely agree with you on the oppressiveness of the One as an all-encompassing principle.
>you magnetize your Divine. which I understand to be the Alchemical approach
Meaning by that, we choose our own monad? There is no externally imposed standard for divinity, much less transcendence?

>>18976896
This model of "true monism" is compelling but the one thing I think constitutes an obstacle to it is the issue of interaction, how do you qualify the mixture at that point, isn't there a fundamental incompatibility when you assume the intersection of Good and Evil (or rather the parasitic appearance of the latter in the former) is impossible without an overarching container (superset)? Successive participation in one monad, then the other? It's unclear.
I don't get the second paragraph even though I'm familiar with the jungian functions, I'll come back to it later

>>18979422
>This model of "true monism" is compelling but the one thing I think constitutes an obstacle to it is the issue of interaction, how do you qualify the mixture at that point, isn't there a fundamental incompatibility when you assume the intersection of Good and Evil (or rather the parasitic appearance of the latter in the former) is impossible without an overarching container (superset)? Successive participation in one monad, then the other?

This is crypto-Catholic Monism as a completion of Materialism, particles in fields and such, whereas I think that the Gnostic reading of Monism should be not so much that the Monads touch or mix inside of one, this being a "true illusion" akin to a true false dichotomy or the Evil good, but that one does not even touch one's self, not so much being partially inside this Monad and partially inside that one, but alternatively totally inside this one and then totally inside that one, this constituting one's fatal "total partialism". The Gnostic Monad not opposing or organizing plurality, Catholic sitcom Theology, but constituting the absence of Monads, the obverse of "King of Kings", which allows one to no longer be part of anything else, per the perverse Si-Ne Monism, which itself creates the problem, plurality, it purports itself to fix; allows one a "transpartialism" of true coincidence. I will elaborate in the upcoming thread, especially how this is not oriental "annihilationism". None of you are ready.

>>18979369
Perspicacious as always.

>man-in-man
I'll refer to my formula: I am not immanent to nature (inside it, fastened to its plane), but immanent FROM it (like you say: the escape is inescapable: great fucking formula by the way... that I am even a "subject" in the first place means my separation has already been - mostly - enacted). A beautifully elegant whitepill if there ever was one.

Man-in-man is always burrowing beneath the castles of phenomena - the great Principles of Sufficient X: History, Philosophy, Reason... while the great universalisms of the World always fail to achieve terminal velocity.

It's helpful to think of how Laruelle inverts philosophy's conventional understanding of transcendence & immanence. Usually: transcendence is liberating, immanence is a capture.

In Laruelle's system: transcendence is capture (by binding me, like you say, to this-or-that set of ontological coordinates), and immanence is liberative, indeed, IS the form of liberation itself.

Because the One is radically autonomous with respect to the Mixture - meaning it isn't a Plotinian One, some bank of possibilities which it emanates/actuates into a World - and because I am also radically autonomous with respect to the world (not as a person, a human being, but a Real on my side), then I am a "clone" of this positive nothingness. I am a unilateral projection of this One, "thrown forth" but never converted backwards to its bosom. No reversion, forget reversions, I am a Stranger, the most alone thing in the World.

>how does the One constrain ontology

Again: give up the idea of a One as a superset, container, even a super-site (some mega-Lichtung a la Heidegger; that would be the World). For right now, since we're flirting with the absolute edge of philosophical abstraction, think of the One more like a Zizekian Non-all than an All.

Another way to put it: remember the formula: "Jehovah dictates, Christ underdetermines". Jehovah is the circularity or "program" of the sun-spot, the membrane which keeps the Logos shut tight on some bank of algorithmic possibility - I read a really excellent paper on the Platonic chora which describes it as something like a library of all possible "connections" inherent to a given set of ontological coordinates. Laruelle's point is basically: not only is the library bigger than you know (Yaldy as the most tyrannical librarian who keeps you confined to a single wing), but there are other libraries as well, libraries of libraries, and so on.

Is the One a superset of all ontological modes? Yes, but it is the most porous superset, it is not a simple null, but an Identity without content, or we could say: it is the "content" of all possible identities.

Continued.

>>18974581
>gropes his own elephant
hehehe

>>18979369
>That's the issue I'm having trouble with...

I can at least tell you the Zoroastrians beat us to it. They're able to think a "positive" privatio boni if there ever was one. I will now paste the passage from a very good introduction to David Lindsay's Voyage to Arcturus which does justice both to my intuition of hard dualism and also my intuition of the One as a kind of phase-space of all possible senses. Brace for abstraction nigga:

>Crystalman perpetrates his own existence, and produces — not creates — the universe, by obtruding his “shadow-form” before the rays of “Muspel,” the divine Light, which is the same ineffable essence as the “Sun beyond the sun” of the mystics, or the ultra-dazzling white radiance referred to, for example, in the cult of Lao-tsze.

>The ontological implications of the work, as must needs be in such a metaphysical allegory, are in some respects para- doxical. Thus, Muspel in its aspect of Deity is not omnipotent, but is “fighting for its life against all that is most shameful and frightful”; yet Crystalman, as evil, is “but a shadow on the face of Muspel.”

>This must mean that, although Crystalman has merely a phenomenal existence, yet Muspel, whose life is involved in the essential life of the souls, or creatures, is also involved in some way in the pernicious effects of the “shadow” that has disparted the sublime rays The “shadow” has no substance, its effects, nevertheless, are formidable; so that, as “Krag” — a terrible Being who represents redemptive pain — expresses it, “Nothing will be done without the bloodiest blows.” Also, this “shadow” has been produced, for there is nothing else to have produced it, by Muspel itself, IN WHICH, HOWEVER, EVIL IS NON-EXISTENT.

>One might infer as a way out of the quandary, that the “shadow” is, analogously, in the nature of a sun-spot on the Celestial sun — a sun-spot being not actually a darkening, but, rather, the effect of an excess of radiance — “Dark with excess of bright”; while, to extend the analogy, a sun-spot is a cause of phenomenal (i.e , electrical) disturbance.

"Dark with an excess of bright" - what do you get when you lock the Light in a Logoic cell? You get a sun-spot, like water going stagnant. I won't pretend this solves the dilemma for you but it might lead you on the right track.

Continued.

>>18979369
>The escape is inescapable, that is precisely why it's the whitest of all pills
Again, great formula. I was reading the Stanford article on Tiantai Buddhism (highly recommended, on par with the ideas presented here: extremely high level analysis of the nature of the Mixture) which ranks the Buddha's teachings on a scale of greater and greater understanding, with the Four Noble Truths we are conventionally taught being just Tier 1. Anyways, I remember reading a very mysterious line in it which said something like at higher tiers, the practitioner knows that death is already the process of liberative negation the practitioner craves. I was flabbergasted. Of course I want to escape cause of death and pain and sorrow but what if these things have already been taken "into account", as it were? Not excused or redeemed, but what if they can possess an Identity only I can give them on my side?

Remember that the Stranger doesn't get loaned an identity (even unilaterally) by the World which he must then actualize FOR the World - we're back to man being an organ of God's self-knowledge... No, he gives the World something it did not have before. What if I give death something it did not have before? Then our resident schizo-poster here in this thread started talking about true death, I had the Cartesian angel intuition, read a paper on the Gnostic resonances of Heidegger in which death consummates my separation from The They, then the intuition that death is a difference in kind... and the rest is history. And now you're repeating this intuition back to me almost verbatim. I'm blown away. What a whitepill.

I mean I guess you could go the Bakker route and say... there's nothing a priori forbidding us from just imagining the Other Side as an unimaginably Evil terror dimension (which is basically Descartes' deal), but there's nothing forbidding the Angel either. Maybe all horror is concentrated here, and horror is a son of this world and not the next. Is Love? Maybe, but not Escape.

It's not death worship, aestheticization of death, a call to suicide. It's something else. "A death for the dead and a death for the living."

>>18979611
>but constituting the absence of Monads, the obverse of "King of Kings"
Unless I'm butchering it, this is correct. A higher, even more radical dualism of a One which is without-principle, and the profusion of every possible mode & principle. The One is a blacklight Pleroma, certainly no "King of kings".

>>18979759
>certainly no "King of kings".

Note the "obverse".

>>18979690
>immanent FROM it
If I were immanent to nature, my being and nature's would be intertwined, impossible to disassociate; if I am immanent from nature, then my removal from nature isn't just a necessity but an immutable fact? In other words, there is a displacement of universality from objective entities and concepts to a subjective center. Were I inside nature, I would be ontologically constrained by it. On the contrary, I am a spectator of nature's constraints, and my participation in it and limitation by it are only incidental. The separation, in that case, would be fully enacted at death, when nature relinquishes its temporary hold.
>the great Principles of Sufficient X
Nothing provides sufficient anything because the "universalisms of the World" as you call them are obviously limited by their own immanence to it. It's like the great failure of physicalism: attempting to describe an object while being helplessly contained within that object. It extends to all the -isms and -logies and also to philosophy itself as Laruelle seems to have pointed out (from what I'm gathering from your posts about him.)
>I am a "clone" of this positive nothingness
I understand the concept of the Stranger, the utmost separateness from the World, but Laruelle's interpretation of the One is still foggy. It'll become clearer when I get to the actual source. To be a Real though, isn't that the strongest affirmation that there is no likeness to anything else? In saying the One is cloned, aren't you taking the One as a universal in the realist sense, while at the same time stating that the individual is its own reality unbound and disconnected (immanence, not transcendence) which is a radically nominalist notion?
>a library of all possible "connections" inherent to a given set of ontological coordinates
This is excellent, the library analogy is perfect. The Demiurge is the "narrowing down" itself, the process by which a single point of the line is experienced. The confining into a specific ontological nexus is a demiurgic process. The library card that is gnosis would then allow the opening up of the entirety of the line (which could be equated to the One?), the demiurgic restriction of possibilities is bypassed/broken and the full scope of what "could be" becomes available. Of course then the question becomes: where does it stop? As soon as Saklas' restriction is lifted, logic already becomes irrelevant and inapplicable in regards to the rest of the library, does it not? There should therefore be as many Logoi as there are coordinates/possibilities for ontological combinations. What is a library of libraries in terms of ontology?
>>18979728
>what do you get when you lock the Light in a Logoic cell? You get a sun-spot
Wait, does this imply that Evil is caused by the imprisonment of Light into a restrictive ontological model? Which would mean that ontology is the catalyst for Evil's spread.

Cont.

>>18979753
>death is already the process of liberative negation the practitioner craves
Very interesting, this is exactly what we've been talking about. And your statement about giving an identity to death is great: as said before, if it can happen, it will happen, so the nature of the individual as monadic Real affords the possibility for death to be the ultimate subjective: when the individual is stripped away from the World, what is left is only the subject, is it not? Could death be the most fundamental expression of individual potentiality, rather than a process that is passively undergone? Is this what it means to create the Pleroma?
>horror is a son of this world and not the next.
Who's to say there will even be any kind of conceptual equivalence between the two? What's in this World will stay there; what's beyond will be an entirely new beginning.

>>18974283
>poststructural philosophy of difference becomes stale
>how can i become fashionable?
>return to the same and the one, but dress it up as if this is the new radical chic
what a hack

>>18980332
Of course, I was basically repeating what you said in my metacode. I see why it sounded that way.

I'm surprised how much we agree.

>>18980505
>If I were immanent to nature...
Precisely, you get it. Now being a "spectator of constraints" is a pretty basic point, even Hegel recognizes it, but the point is that this spectatorship is not the spectatorship of a God-mechanic tweaking his Creation from the inside.

I'd hesitate to use the word "universality": not a Universal Man, but generic man(in-man). But I'm just being a stickler. You get it.

>the separation would be fully enacted...
Let's say your immanence is a "performance" (NOT a performation: feeding the escape hatch's blueprint back into the power-system) which will be consummated by death. Jesus, what are we are we talking about here? A luminous Mainlander? A whitepilled Philosophy of Redemption?

>nothing provides sufficient anything...
Precisely. You get it.

>to be a Real...
Yes, to possess no likeness is another way of saying I am Undecidable... I am exempt from the intrinsic decidability of the World. Yes: the One is cloned, the One does NOT clone me. I am not a protrusion of the One, an advancement of its inner reality, no Plotinus here.

The One is generic, not universal. Universality implies an identity whose content is of the world. Genericity (?) is just identity without content, or a content that is PURE identity (an Identity unburdened by the sausage casing of a Oneness).

>The library card that is gnosis...
Lmao, yes. Yup. I wouldn't equate the One with the totality of libraries - remember, the One is utterly inaccessible, foreclosed, Without-Principle.

>what is the library of all libraries...
Two options (this is where I diverge from Laruelle): 1. The World as the total Mixture, simply the most comprehensive Circle of Evil. The Cartesian Angel is simply the non-ontological.

2. Or, the LoL as the Sun proper, and the World/Mixture is just a stagnant locale within the library. Salvation, escape (the Cartesian Angel) is simply a repressed possibility coming outside our "local" wing, which has the same function as a non-ontology.

>Does this imply Evil...

Yes. Light stagnating or being bled by and bleeding INTO the cytoplasm of the cell-as-Logos.

Continued.

>>18980510
Lemme put it this way, as a summary:

I'm not a voluntarist, I don't believe this reality is one "slice" in the total bandwidth of all possible realities, I don't think this place is one "take" on how things COULD be: I think this world is already every possible world. Pic related is the PERFECT visual illustration of what I'm talking about: what if death has a "duck" aspect and a "rabbit" aspect? Kek.

If it is every possible world, what if death is already the form of every possible deliverance (or at least a special kind? Without it ceasing to be death, to be horrible?

>Is this what it means to create the Pleroma?
Yes. It's very Schopenhaurian I think: take away the craw in your throat, and there's only light (you can tell whose Gnostic and who isn't by the status they afford the World: is it the negation, or realization, of Light? Is creation a limitation of possibility, or an explosion of it in an inert void? These positions all cut across each other every which way: remember that in Zoroastrianism, God's omnipotence CAN be reconciled with God's goodness). Darkness is the absence of Light, and Light is the absence of Darkness.

>will be an entirely new beginning
Let's hope, my friend. I don't need a paradise, just a beginning.

>>18979396
>doesn't this imply that one monad's evil is another one's light?
it does. I assume there are perverts that would be stimulated from harassing and feeding ('communitarianizing') other monads and call it 'light'. well.. isn't that the law for those blind and greedy, who are ontological cowards? those in lack, serving the monad of necessity, and perpetuating its 'logos'.
>I completely agree with you on the oppressiveness of the One as an all-encompassing principle.
that is good to hear. speaking on the Laruelle's Christ (against all odds) I do believe that even such little moments of good-hearted communications are part of the Work. doesn't matter how humble it is, communications in the good spirit is part of the gnostic practice of posting. also, close to Sloterdijk's 'resonance communities' that are not about feeding those discourse's gatekeepers but being-together for the sake of becoming: becoming-more and disclosing.
>Meaning by that, we choose our own monad? There is no externally imposed standard for divinity, much less transcendence?
wouldn't dare to answer it with full confidence, the mystery cannot be fully understood. my intuition that here are number of ontological variants of divinity (as in astrological signs or the tribes of Is-Real, or letters of the alphabet. or the Runes), and beyond that there might be 'non-certified' variants approaching towards the incomprehensibility of chaos.
more on the matter: there is a co-influence between monad-here and monad-there (Ideal). [[[also, the very primordial sin is that: a disconnection between an immanent here and a transcendental interface there]]] practically speaking, when we do disharmony we disharmonize our meta-structure. that leads to (evangelion's) dis-synchronization, one becoming a less self-centered monad, losing his Glory, his sight, his way. becoming prey to the other side (any type of heteronomy).
interesting concept from Zoroastrianism: in afterlife one meets his Daena -- Soul? personal divinity? -- on the occasion of failure, Daena would personify corruption one did in a past life; who originally is a young princess of beauty and wisdom: Lady Alchemy.
>>18979369
>>18979396
>You mean an infinitude of "monads"?
in the infinitude there is only one the-One-Monad that is of your being. but at the beginning one doesn't know which one, i.e. what signatures and vibrations are of that one. at the beginning, in the mode of forgetting, there is no ability of recognition and differentiation. however! the light, in that instance, is manifested as faith in possibility of knowing your monad: a blind man stumbling in the dark. path illuminated by an inner light.

>>18980947
>my intuition that here are number of ontological variants of divinity (as in astrological signs or the tribes of Is-Real, or letters of the alphabet. or the Runes),
Excellent, not only does this tie in with the divine multiplicity of Henads, but something mysterious I read almost a decade ago. A book that argued the afterlife isn't one-size-fits-all, but a cosmos unto itself: not God, but Gods as different planetary destinations in the lux.

>>18980902
>this spectatorship is not the spectatorship of a God-mechanic tweaking his Creation from the inside.
I see it as a succession of kaleidoscopic "snapshots of reality" where the supreme point of view (the individual; not God) is thrown into a momentary restriction of perspective (ontological coordinates). Nature has no primacy, it's almost a static landscape the observer navigates, it is discarded at a moment's notice, the moment being death.
>not a Universal Man, but generic man(in-man)
Well yes I'm not talking about the aeon of Man, but about you and I.
>a performance consummated by death
It's quite a beautiful image. The paroxysmal moment is the singularity of death, where everything unfolds.
>Jesus, what are we are we talking about here?
We're reaching levels of abstraction that are hard to deal with but I guess as long as we keep in mind this Ariadne's thread (non-death intuition as you called it), I believe it's not possible to make big mistakes.
>to possess no likeness
>the One is cloned
>The One is generic
Hmm... So, the individual is that that is not "like" anything because there is no mode of comparison appropriate to it (it isn't quantifiable or qualifiable) but the One is more like the framework that underlies the universality of the mixture? A vast "nothing-field" on which bubbles up the World?
>The World as the total Mixture
Is there no place for the non-ontological in Laruelle's libraries of libraries of libraries...? Are all possible sets and supersets of libraries just permutations of ontological coordinates, but never removed from ontology itself?
In that case, are you implying that Evil infects every wing of this vast complex, even when they are spared from demiurgic intervention? After all, we've established that it is the "narrowing down process" that allowed Evil to appear (in essence, ontology begets Evil). But if the possibilities are left alone, never forced to "be" anything, there is no ground for Evil to appear, that is to say, if there is no librarian, the library is safe.
>I'm not a voluntarist, I don't believe this reality is one "slice" in the total bandwidth of all possible realities
Interesting, I tend to see reality as an infinite bandwidth so I'm interested in knowing what put you off this idea.
Are you saying this world is every possible world because of the infinite variation in subjective perspectives? But there is a finite amount of subjectivity in the World, because the World itself is finite. The World is a precise ontological mode, it is a snapshot as said above.
>what if death is already the form of every possible deliverance
I struggle to imagine the form that would take, concretely.
>I don't need a paradise, just a beginning.
Well said. I share your sentiment wholly, as should anyone who hates the World, yet (or rather, thus) loves life.

>>18981338
>So, the individual is that that is not "like" anything because there is no mode of comparison appropriate to it
Yes, it is the eternal secret, any thing that purports to "unfold" and understand it in this World is just a graft, a copula surgically attached to an Undecidable then bound to some (differentially grounded) discourse: language, then science, then philosophy, and so forth.

Yes, the One is this field that underlies the universality of the mixture, but remember even nothingness is a graft. So long as we're not regressing into emanation, continuation, tzimtzum or this or that: the One is utterly foreclosed to the Principles that teem (notice I didn't say Principles that teem FROM IT - this is the key, or else we're just back to Plotinus). This is why Laruelle hinges a lot of his system on the distinction between creation (monotheistic), production (Deleuzian)... and cloning.

>Are all possible sets and supersets just permutations of ontological coordinates...

Okay, that's the "Buddhist" answer: everything that is conditioned is Samsara, and the unconditioned and deathless is its non-ontology analog. So that's door #1.

Door #2 is the respect Laruelle has for the diversity of (all-)possible phenomenalisations/immanences that this field must "enable", so that's why he's always at pains to identify non-being as OTHER-THAN-being (we're not back to wanting be quenched by mystic nothingness; we're talking about the radically ulterior, not the negative, and YET, in this wing, the ulterior is the negative: Sloterdijk calls the True God the "acosmic supergod of the negative": if it is pure nullity, how could it be God?).

Let's put it this way. Imagine the color spectrum. Is Evil the entirety of the spectrum in its substance like Samsara (or one of its extremes, a la non-being/Matter in Plotinus), or is it just one color in a true zoo of colors? If the latter, then what you guys were talking about earlier, about Monads being the respective Goods and Evils of every other Monad could apply here... which maybe means the light is... the Evil of some infinitely remote abstraction we can't even begin to anticipate? But aren't Good and Evil still meta-categories at this point? I refuse to follow this line of questioning. That's the event horizon of thought there.

>Are you saying this world is every possible world because of the infinite variation in subjective perspectives?

Precisely, or it is the ground of conceivability for all possible subjective perspectives (phenomenalisations). It doesn't need to be infinite, it just needs to be true.

Where else can the "thinkability" of everything originate but in the site of which all is thinkable? Notice we're identifying it as something - thinkability, conceivability - it has a substance, it's just not just a permissive null, the trick is to think this Sense that is NEVERTHELESS every possible pre-sense, sense, non-sense, etc.

Continued.

>>18981338
Do you know how Kant says that the totality of all possible experiences must be circumscribed by what is possible only AS human experience? Laruelle dilates this: the boundaries of experience are not drawn quite so tightly. It's why Brassiere says he performs a transcendental turn on the transcendental turn: even the transcendental bubble of human subjectivity zooms out into a foam (though we should be careful not to assume it's all "bubbles"; that these are transcendental structures are all convertible to each other, even formally, especially formally).

1 billion pages of retarded gnoostic mumbling yet still no grounding in Laruelle's work for how non-thetic immanence can be considered non-philosophical when it presupposes a decidedly philosophical theory of experience and knowledge, nor how the criticism of philosophy can stand without being bootstrapped by the axiomatic positing of the One (meaning the system is trapped in a superposition between being a science of Philosophy in light of the One and knowledge of the One itself nominally through philosophy). Michel Henry pulled this shit off far better because he had ground to stand on, namely the Phenomenological method. Without the Phenomenological method which gives us access to Life itself in its immediate most intimate giveness of itself to itself, the conditions of manifestation which never themselves manifest, we're left with Laruelle purposelessly playing around with scraps of philosophy, all justified under what might as well be dogmatic presupposition.

>>18981599
>gives us access to
Aren't we already our own ports of excess? Why claim you're so grounded in Laruelle when you seem to forget he says truth is not necessarily communicational? I can tell you know you're stuff, but whatever man

>>18981618
Access*, jesus

>>18981618
I phrased it wrong, "access" suggests intentionality and transcendence which is not true for Michel Henry. Without the Phenomenological method and the reduction, the Phenomenology of Life would be impossible. Life would be mistaken for just another intentional object.

>>18981632
I don't know Henry at all so I'll just defer to your apparent expertise here and assume Laruelle was being characteristically a little too dismissive of him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOs51Lvhn64

>two exits
>Street or nosedive to the next life in seconds
>And suicide ain't my stallion
>So I'm surrounded

Note the correct classification of both exits as suicide and the realization of a "true false dichotomy".

>>18981490
>language, then science, then philosophy, and so forth.
They're inevitable, or inescapable as long as we're contained in this nexus, unfortunately. Maybe the Zen Buddhists aren't wrong in their approach, when faced with the corruption of language and philosophy, just shutting the fuck up isn't that bad a foundation to avoid misleading conclusions.
>everything that is conditioned is Samsara
Well, we could also say that this duality (Samsara/deathless) is itself a subset from which you can break free, assuming that there are "varieties of non-ontologies". But at that point you're walking in a completely unmapped territory and there's no point in conjecturing or even talking about it.
>is it just one color in a true zoo of colors?
Yeah that's what I was referring to above. I believe this to be the case, but as you say, we're reaching an event horizon. Although I would be wary of assuming meta-categories would still hold ground at that point.
>Where else can the "thinkability" of everything originate but in the site of which all is thinkable?
But doesn't the World limit thinkability precisely because of its specificity? You yourself bring up pre-sense and non-sense, that is, what is outside the current boundaries of "sense" in these coordinates. For the truly unlimited breadth of all potential subjective perspectives to be reached, you would also need an unlimited ground for their arising, that is, a field where every permutation is allowed, where there is no demiurgic intervention. At least that is the immediate logical conclusion our exchange seems to point towards.

>>18981618
>Aren't we already our own ports of excess?
yes, we are: excess or lack, truly. you either choose your own port to play 'around with scraps of philosophy', relying on the Divine Voice as the guide. or they p l u g into you. and they ride you, they ride you until there is monism of nothing.

>>18981960
>Maybe the Zen Buddhists aren't wrong in this point...

To put it crudely, Laruelle is a Zen Master who didn't shut the fuck up, even when he knows he should and tells every body else to also. Because he wants everybody to become a gnostic Houdini; undoing the straitjacket from the inside, weaponizing World-against-world. "Ontology of leather jackets."

>Well, we could say this duality...

This process of encompassing old dualities in new dualities is also a compulsive tic of this ontology/power-system. Separation without performation is exactly this: separation without (re)contextualization. Throwing a ball up so high it doesn't fall back down.

>I believe this to be the case...

Yes, it fits in with the distinction between difference and DIVERSITY.

Good and Evil being different from each other (as in, differentially grounded: Good needs Evil to be Good, Evil needs Good to be Evil... just like, eat some pizza man, can't have joy without pain haha :^) and Good and Evil being diverse principles tout court, each occupying their self-given "frame", as it were.

>But doesn't the World limit thinkability precisely because of its specificity?

First, Laruelle distinguishes between the Earth and the World, so it's best not to think of me referring to this total bandwidth as somehow being actualized on Jigaboo Ave in Detroit, MI.

Second, the point is precisely to think an Identity/specificity which is not limiting but positive, a FREE RADICAL and not a stricture. It sounds like Deleuze and his ilk - and that whole run of anti-representationalist, anti-Platonic 20th c. philosophy - except that Laruelle clings to Identity as something underdetermining the World, not OVERdetermining it. Not Platonic sameness with flesh and muscle and full-bodied, but skeletal, an undergird.

I lean toward a World peppered with concentric sun-spots (me and you, I'm pretty damn sure we're outside the flouridated flesh golem normie/goon cave NEET degenerate/psychopathic politician retard monster demon faggot circles... but still inside vaster circles in which these ideas still serve some control program, however "diluted").

Don't imagine these things as bubbling up out of a ground, as if the One precedes these things and gives them life, but think of bubbles that are "necessarily grounded" and "necessarily ground", they borrow or "eat" immanence to be bubbles. Not particularly proud of this image since it comes with a million qualifications, but my head's fried rn. Take this one with a grain of salt.

>>18981948
>ain't my stalin
>kamikazi imma nazi
>what does he mean by that

>>18982045
Yes.

> you either choose your own port to play 'around with scraps of philosophy', relying on the Divine Voice as the guide.

Yeah this is exactly why I'm kind of unrustled by that anon. I have my (actually kind of profound) disagreements with Laruelle but right now he's hitting the spot.

Here's one: he says the (properly) Gnostic rejection of the World is born of resentment, and that the "non-philosopher" believes that even Evil can be redeemed. I know what he's saying in light of his thought, but still. No thanks.

>>18981948
>ain't my stalin
>kamikazi imma nasi
>what does he mean by that

>>18982096
>but right now he's hitting the spot.
as long as you are inspired and enchanted. I believe that what is true in one set of coordinates not necessary will be on the next station. we change: our ontologies change. an alchemical awe of becoming. and true becoming is becoming unmixed, becoming clear. more potent yet simple. >that anon saying 'retarded gnoostic mumbling yet still no grounding in Laruelle'? at our own ports of excess/access, which means: 'Fuck your idols suck my dick.'
>grounded in groundlessness. >>18982045

>>18982082
>This process of encompassing old dualities in new dualities
I'm not trying to come up with a new duality here, my point is more that the deathless (in opposition to Samsara) could also be assumed to be a component of an ineffable (thus not a duality) category of non-ontologies. But as I said, talking about this is utterly pointless. And I'm exhausted too so honestly I think we should cut this short for today kek
>Good and Evil being diverse principles tout court, each occupying their self-given "frame"
Yeah this is obviously much more elegant and also allows for the existence of a myriad of other potentialities (monads) as the other anon pointed out earlier ITT.
>this total bandwidth as somehow being actualized on Jigaboo Ave in Detroit, MI.
kek, the World being the universe according to Laruelle? Well, even then, there's an inherent limit, if only the one afforded by cosmological constants.
I just don't know if a "non limiting and positive identity" is permitted by the World and I'm not fresh enough to be pondering it right now frankly.
>still inside vaster circles in which these ideas still serve some control program
You mean we're still within control systems? Of course, it's inevitable, we're still influenced. But to a much lesser degree as you said, and to the point where I don't know which actions could be undertaken at this point to break free from those structures aside from outright death. I think Baudrillard would have something to say about this.
>One precedes these things and gives them life
Yes at this point my understanding is that the One doesn't give, beget or grant anything but is more of a stage, a set, whatever metaphor of passivity (or rather, distance and detachment) is more appropriate.

>>18982204
>mfw i've single-handedly caused gripsposting on /lit/

>>18982251
I'm tired too, not gonna send you a giant post. I'll just say the intuitions we've all been converging on are pretty on the money and fruitful.

>the World being the universe
Yeah, but maybe not the cosmological universe. Let's leave it at that lol.

Yes, the One is a stage which somehow does not itself stage the "plays" that take place on it. It's rather that any play that wants to be a play needs a stage. I have more to say, esp with regard to your point with Good, Evil, a variety of other monads/divinities... but let's leave it at that jesus christ lol.

Goodnight.