[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 102 KB, 960x433, IMG_3222.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22435212 No.22435212 [Reply] [Original]

The judge smiled. Organisms are born for process. Nothing else. Every child knows that process is more enduring than essence. He knows too that the nature or definition of an essence is not inherent in the essence itself but rather in its relations to that which is always evolving. Essentialist ontologies require a complex knower to have any meaning at all. Essentialist metaphysics involves the evaluation and sustaining of the eternal objects and the evolution of corpuscular societies and the potentiality of ingression is in in itself insufficient to define an eternal object because they must inhere in the nexus of actual entities to which God made them relevant. But public matter of fact or private matter of fact all eternal objects aspire to the condition of creativity for here that which is evolves swallows up creature, God, all.

Suppose two actual entities in process with nothing to prehend save each other. Who has not heard such a tale? An objectification of the body. The whole universe for such an entity has labored clanking to this moment which will tell if he is to pass away in his own concrescence or become subsumed into a deadened corpuscular society. What more certain determination of an organism’s essence could there be? This enhancement of the process to its ultimate state admits no argument concerning the notion of aseity. The decision of one modification of feeling over another is an evaluation absolute and irrevocable and it is a dull man indeed who could reckon so profound a decision without the conditioning of creativity or the divine ordering of God either one. In such processes as have for their end the concrescence into a final fact of ultimate relatedness the decisions are quite clear. This organism holding this particular arrangement of prehensions in its consciousness is thereby removed from relevance. This is the nature of process, whose stake is at once the essence and the relation and the objective immortality. Seen so, process is the truest form of determination. It is the interaction of one’s appetition and the appetition of another within that larger appetition which because it binds them is therefore forced to select. Process is the ultimate reality because process is at last a forcing of the unity of existence. Process is god. Brown studied the judge.

You’re crazy Holden. Crazy at last.

The judge smiled.

>> No.22435261

>>22435212
Wtf is it true?

>> No.22435268

>>22435212
What a load of crap

>> No.22435274

>>22435268
Refute it then.

>> No.22435277

>>22435274
No.

>> No.22435291

This reads like some dumb 1990s AI trying to sound like Melville. I am glad i skimmed through the book. It's criminally overrated desu.

>> No.22435304
File: 721 KB, 836x803, image.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22435304

>>22435212
>The judge smiled. Organisms are born for process. Nothing else. Every child knows that process is more enduring than essence. He knows too that the nature or definition of an essence is not inherent in the essence itself but rather in its relations to that which is always evolving. Essentialist ontologies require a complex knower to have any meaning at all. Essentialist metaphysics involves the evaluation and sustaining of the eternal objects and the evolution of corpuscular societies and the potentiality of ingression is in in itself insufficient to define an eternal object because they must inhere in the nexus of actual entities to which God made them relevant. But public matter of fact or private matter of fact all eternal objects aspire to the condition of creativity for here that which is evolves swallows up creature, God, all.

>Suppose two actual entities in process with nothing to prehend save each other. Who has not heard such a tale? An objectification of the body. The whole universe for such an entity has labored clanking to this moment which will tell if he is to pass away in his own concrescence or become subsumed into a deadened corpuscular society. What more certain determination of an organism’s essence could there be? This enhancement of the process to its ultimate state admits no argument concerning the notion of aseity. The decision of one modification of feeling over another is an evaluation absolute and irrevocable and it is a dull man indeed who could reckon so profound a decision without the conditioning of creativity or the divine ordering of God either one. In such processes as have for their end the concrescence into a final fact of ultimate relatedness the decisions are quite clear. This organism holding this particular arrangement of prehensions in its consciousness is thereby removed from relevance. This is the nature of process, whose stake is at once the essence and the relation and the objective immortality. Seen so, process is the truest form of determination. It is the interaction of one’s appetition and the appetition of another within that larger appetition which because it binds them is therefore forced to select. Process is the ultimate reality because process is at last a forcing of the unity of existence. Process is god. Brown studied the judge.

>You’re crazy Holden. Crazy at last.

>The judge smiled.

>> No.22435307

>>22435291
McCarthy doesn’t sound like Melville at all.

>> No.22435323

>>22435307
He has read neither. Give him a break.

>> No.22435326

>>22435291
I wish you weren't so low IQ. RIP

>> No.22435333

>>22435212
The redpill is that ordinary humans (us all) can only view things from the point of it's relation to other things, not it's true essence that determine it's relation seen as process and which would be actual esoteric knowledge. Process is dependent on essence but you can't know the latter.

>> No.22435345

>>22435333
If everything we think and perceive is processional then it is impossible to develop a coherent conception of essence at all so your statements about it are meaningless and useless, as are all statements about anything that we “can’t know.” What exactly is the relevance of essence if it is never known?

>> No.22435355

>>22435345
>if it's unpragmatical it is meaningless and useless
NGMI

>> No.22435368

>>22435345
Much can be known by pondering over what can't be known. It is not inportant that you know the essence, but know the limits of what can be known in trying to reach it.
>They were men of another time for all that they bore christian names and they had lived all their lives in a wilderness as had their fathers before them. They’d learnt war by warring, the generations driven from the eastern shore across a continent, from the ashes at Gnadenhutten onto the prairies and across the outlet to the bloodlands of the west. If much in the world were mystery the limits of that world were not, for it was without measure or bound and there were contained within it creatures more horrible yet and men of other colors and beings which no man has looked upon and yet not alien none of it more than were their own hearts alien in them, whatever wilderness contained there and whatever beasts.

>> No.22435400
File: 74 KB, 922x1080, A Man with a Pair of Dividers - Gentile Bellini (c.1429–1507) (attributed to) The National Gallery, London.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22435400

>>22435345
>as are all statements about anything that we “can’t know.”
You can know the essense of a thing (nature of a thing as it is in the mind of God) if it is revealed to you by higher beings, the geniuses. Than, as process is determined by the essense, you can see hidden relations and processes between things and perform what knows as magick, alchemy and sorcery - the royal art by which the Masters rule this world for hundreds of years.

>You’re crazy Anon. Crazy at last.
>Anon smiled.......

>> No.22435429

>>22435400
>You can know the essense of a thing (nature of a thing as it is in the mind of God) if it is revealed to you by higher beings, the geniuses
False. Since you’ve never perceived something unchanging and unconditioned, you would be unable to understand it if someone told you about it

>> No.22435492

>>22435429
>since person blind from birth haven't seen any colors no medical operation aimed at restoration of vision would give him this ability, even if his eyes will be able to perceive light and his brain able to receive their signals

>> No.22435498

>>22435307
>>22435323
>>22435326
yeah right, he's basically watered down Melville. "call me Ishmael" "see the child"
you fucking zoomers are headed towards utter irrelevance

>> No.22435848

>>22435498
Zoomers live rent free in your head. I bet you think that zoomers are responsible for the current state of literature (they aren't)

>> No.22436433

>>22435498
What a completely irrefutable proof? Would you like to head the chair of literature in my local primary school?

>> No.22437691

>>22436433
I wasn't trying provide some thesis or proof, I was just responding to the assholes who think Melville, and Faulker to an extent, have no influence on McCarthy. He's literally a cheap Chinese copy of those dudes.

>> No.22437694

>>22437691
being influenced by melville doesn’t mean their prose sounds anything alike

>> No.22437863

>>22437691
You have likely read none of those 3.