/lit/ - Literature

>>20047977
I’m one of the Bataille fags that’s been making thee to dads about him the past few weeks and shilling him I bother people threads. I’m not the only though, I’ve interacted with at least two other Bataille fags.

>>20047982
>making thee to dads
How the fuck did this happen? I meant making posts.

>>20047977
/lit/ will become a Bataillean board

>>20047982
>shilling him I bother people’s threads
Shit, how the duck did this happen to? I meant shilling him in other people’s threads.

>>20048000
>how the duck
I’m gonna fucking kill myself

>>20047986
>>20048000
stop typing while getting your dick sucked

>>20048006
I wish, I just woke up and I’m phone posting in bed.

>>20047977
Why not both and take the Prévostpill?

>>20047982
I am also a Bataille fag. Started last summer

>>20047977
Sadechad reporting in.

>>20047977
/lit/ will become a Bataillean board

Your children will be Sandersonians

Gaynonce or Badbitchille

>>20047982
>>20047986
>>20048000
>Bataillefag is a low IQ aesthete
Who could have guessed....

>>20047977

Guenon reigns supreme over this board

>>20048372
Cope. I was phone posting after having just woken up.

>>20047977
any other book like the accursed share?

>>20048381
/lit/ will become a Bataillean board

>>20048413
Living Currency

Jungerfagging

>>20048475
Danke.

>>20047977
Bataille. All of the absolute retardation we had to put up with a couple years back with guenonfags spamming shit about “hylics”, “dualism”, “pbuh” etc really put me off Guenonposting.

>>20047982
Wouldn’t call myself a Bataillefag but Accursed Share is a phenomenal book

>>20048413
The Gift by Marcel Mauss, Libidinal Economy by Lyotard, The Impossible Exchange by Baudrillard.

>>20047996
Cenobites are a low IQ concept

>>20048471
why?

>>20048705
They are going to potlatch this place every day until /lit/ likes it.

>>20048747
Das rite

Bataille tried multiple times to have a man kill him

>>20048909
Yeah Acephale we’re a bunch of pussies, none of them wanted to be executioner. It just ended up being a gay larp (which I guess lives up to the fact that Nietzsche was nothing like the overman described in his writings).

I would’ve done it. Bet you I could kill Bataille with one punch.

>>20048934
>Nietzsche was nothing like the overman described in his writings
Wrong. For one, nobody is like the overman described in his writings because the overman is the next stage in humankind’s evolution. A man can no more just one day become an overman than a monkey can just one day become a human. Nietzsche considered great men to be free spirits, not overmen. What are the criteria for a man to be a free spirit? There are mainly two. The first is he creates his own values and the second is he self overcomes. Nietzsche did both. He created a philosophy unlike anything the world had seen before and he pushed himself to live and to write despite the debilitating illness he suffered from his entire life that made both of those things almost impossible.

Anyways, speaking of Acephale, does anyone practice a sort of Bataillean spirituality? He wrote a lot about atheistic spirituality (his Summa Atheologica trilogy, Erotism, etc.) and wrote a series of mediations among other things for Acephale.

>>20047996
>>20048062
>>20048471
The hunt has been conjured. /lit/ will become a Bataillean board

>>20048947
> Wrong. For one, nobody is like the overman described in his writings
Including Nietzsche. So what you’re saying is that I’m right? Gotcha.

>>20048989
Go fuck yourself

>>20047977
Guenon was already refuted by Hegel

>>20049005
How so?

>>20048547
this

>>20048673
Thank you.

>>20048682
The extremes of sensation are non-dual. Pleasure and pain, sacred and profane, and so forth. In Hellraiser or its novella, the Cenobites are not essentially villains, it is man's desire for the summit which leads to them, and the terror this summit consists of that inspires man to flee. The villain(s) are very much Frank and Julia.

>>20048987
SEX
(with Edwarda)

>>20049272
Did someone say something erotic?

Word to the wise: don't take fiscal advice from French intellectuals. They were state-funded parasites living in a specific moment in time.

>>20050010
>state funded shitposting
What a time to be alive

>>20049005
this

>>20050010
>ywn be a chainsmoking, mistressfucking, paid glowing frenchie shitposter
but /lit/ loves houellebecq

Only ever heard of Bataille in "The Seduction of Unreason" a solid 2.5/5 book that accused him of being an intellectual forerunner of Fascism but I can't remember why. Anyone want to give me a quick rundown?

>>20049005
Hegel sperg'd out against Indian philosophy because he knew his own system was a second-rate imitation of Vedantic truth, whether he intended it or not.

>>20051077
How could he be an intellectual forerunner of a movement that started (and ended) before he wrote any of his principle works?

>>20051096
Vedanta is theistic. Hegelianism is atheistic. Or are you saying Vedanta is crypto-Buddhism?

>>20051103
>Vedanta is theistic
Nope.
>Hegelianism is atheistic.
Nope.
Try actually reading some time.

>>20051097
I'll drag the book out and see what was said then I'll get back to ya

>>20051107
>hindu theology
>not theism
>neo-spinozism
>not atheism
Maybe you should start Hooked on Phonics and learn to read

>>20051115
You may be thinking of the term "sur-fascism" which was a play on sur-realism and fascism, implying an overcoming of fascism. Bataille was also critical of the use of Nietzsche by fascists and had his own interpretation of Nietzsche.

>>20048973
>does anyone practice a sort of Bataillean spirituality? He wrote a lot about atheistic spirituality (his Summa Atheologica trilogy, Erotism, etc.
Apparently so, although I never heard of this. Thanks for the recs, of Bataille's I'm currently reading Blue of Noon and Literature and Evil.

>>20051121
Hegel is not a Spinozist, Hindu philosophy is not theism. Even Spinoza is not an atheist. I cannot believe you've read anything on this topic, except maybe some second rate academic hack who thought he "got Hegel."

>>20048973

1. charge glass phalluses by the sunlight of solstices/eclipses
2. put them up your butt

>>20051151
I don't think Spinoza is an atheist, but the neo-Spinozists like Hegel were certainly developing systems in which the notion of God was no longer the apex or even necessary. I am curious what source you have that Hindu theology is not theistic. I can only assume you are some sort of Abrahamist and able to write off "strange gods" as demons, and therefore strange theology is atheism

>>20051177
>Hegel were certainly developing systems in which the notion of God was no longer the apex
The exact opposite is the case with Hegel, unless you do not consider "The Absolute" to be an equivalent to God, in which case neither is God the apex of Hindu philosophy. The only sense in which I take him as an atheist is the fixation on time and "development of ideas", probably the only genuinely profane thing about his philosophy, the tasteless historicism included. The fetishization of time of all things. Spinoza's formulation of God is also conspicuously similar to the Vedantic formulation (although I am not trying to imply he copied anyone). In fact neither Spinoza nor Hegel are particularly original in substance, only in form (in particular Spinoza, who has created a very "modern" formulation on a simplification of ancient knowledge).
>I am curious what source you have that Hindu theology is not theistic.
The Upanishads, the Vedas, the Vedantic writings of Sri Shankaracharya, Guenon's writings. Vedantic "theology" is non-dual, this means, in an almost similar way to Hegel, it is both an acknowledgement and a rejection of monism, it is a higher unity of opposites which are not lessened by the fact that they are transcended. The correct order is also established in that the consequent arises from the principle, and not the other way around (if the Absolute is not principle then by definition it cannot be Absolute). Neither is it a theism, which implies the conceptualization and limitation of God to a state which is not Infinite, like Christian theology. The clearest superiority of formulation over Hegel is that it does not require time to develop itself, and is already fully developed and omnipresent, without any appeal to historicism or other vaguely unconvincing beliefs. There is no flight from the present and obsession with becoming. Everything is as it should be and will always be, although this does not exclude change and time. This is why I view Hegel as second-rate in comparison to the Hindus.

>>20051290
>Neither is it a theism, which implies the conceptualization and limitation of God to a state which is not Infinite, like Christian theology
I didn't say it was Christian theology. Christians do not have a monopoly on theology. If you believe God wrote the Vedas (or that they wrote themselves, or whatever not having a human author means), you are a theist. If your absolute principle is deified you are a theist. If your system involves worship of gods you are a theist. This idea that you can just extract Vedanta and parcel it with whatever metaphysical priors you have and divorce it from its Indian religious context is entirely ahistorical, anti-cultural, and of course, typical of perennialist thought, which is just the inverse of Christians calling everything other than Christianity idolatrous. Instead, everything other than Christianity becomes perennial

>>20051131
Alright I dredged up my notes. Don't remember the context on this, but basically Bataille during the Contre-Attaque period was quoted in support of Fascist aesthetics and methods and though that their revolution was going to reignite the corrupt worker's movement. He also in 1939 gave a now lost lecture called Hitler and the Teutonic Order where he was ostensibly in praise of the ritualistic aspects of Nazism, recognizing their revolutionary and mythological potential. I believe the author draws this conclusion due to Bataille's involvement in the Acephale secret society which is thought to have performed rituals including animal sacrifice. Bataille is quoted at the end of the section as having "succumed to a 'paradoxical Fascist tendency'" during the 30s.
I don't really get the context for any of this as I said. Seems like he thought the masses were starved for belief in anything and wanted to use "fanaticism" and illiberal aesthetics against liberal democracies

>>20051356
sounds like it's just polemic against him by another leftist, they had lots of doctrinal infighting at the time, like the early Christians

>>20051339
>If you believe God wrote the Vedas (or that they wrote themselves, or whatever not having a human author means), you are a theist.
That is not how theism is defined.
>If your absolute principle is deified you are a theist.
So Hegel is a theist then and your point with respect to the Vedanta is nil.
>this idea that you can just extract Vedanta and parcel it with whatever metaphysical priors
It is not extracted. It is entirely whole. There is no separation. Again, read Sri Shankaracharya or stop pretending you know anything about it. The metaphysical "priors" are coessential with the Vedas and Upanishads, they are in fact found directly in these books. There is nothing "external" about them.
>entirely ahistorical, anti-cultural,
Read Celsus, Plato, Herodotus, Aristotle, any of the ancient authors who still had a healthy respect for their traditions, which was almost all of them, even the Cynics. There is nothing ahistorical or anti-cultural about it. In fact, Celsus thought the tendencies of Christians, opposed to the Galactophagoi, Hyperboreans, Indians, Egyptians, Hellenes, Romans, were one of the few truly anti-cultural and "ahistorical" movements in existence because they explicitly denied the universal identification of God (as archaios logos) and gods. Your view of the world as fragmented and dogmatically separated is typical of your Christian-historical bias, which is directly responsible for your myopic, fragmented understanding of history. It has interpenetrated the common understanding of history due to Christianity's large influence on the West's intellectual history.

>>20051356
I believe the point of The Seduction of Unreason was that postmodern French philosophy has something in common with fascism, therefore bad. Tbh accusing continental philosophers of being fascists or antisemites has become something of an academic specialty for some (Mehlman, Wolin, Ginzburg, Sternhell). There might’ve been (political) ambiguity in Bataille, for sure, a simultaneous repulsion and fascination, and he does indeed write during that period of appropriating the weapons of the enemy. I’d say this mistrust of ambiguity is what today often shuts down any dissenting movement (of any side), pulling it back to the flat status quo of the ""liberal-democratic"" world order.

bump

>>20051462
>The metaphysical "priors" are coessential with the Vedas and Upanishads, they are in fact found directly in these books
Those are Indian scriptures about Indian theology. Vedanta IS theistic. YOU are able to call it non-theistic because YOU are the deracinated, poorly christened westoid who appropriates half a dozen religions, slurs them into neo-theosophy, and then calls it "perennial philosophy"