/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13438809]

THE BRAIN IS THE ECLIPSE OF ITS GROUND: Bakker's Blind Brain Theory does for cognitive science what Kant did for metaphysics: the gist of it is very simple: lacking direct access to an object, a brain must rely on some kind of interpretive algorithm to infer appearances from context clues: for example, those optical illusions that trick you into perceiving the same two lines as being different lengths are actually tricking your depth perception heuristic: the brain uses what Bakker calls medial mechanisms/components to construct its perceptions, but just like Kant, the rules of the construction are not themselves part of the construction (except in an a priori mode): not because we simply lack perception of the ruleset, but because there is no perception /without/ a ruleset: the brain is what makes a man, as Heidegger calls him, the “environing” animal: its inclusion in an environment is precisely what selects for its determinate (read: heuristic) occlusion /of/ that environment: the brain must always be screening for properties relevant to the problems it is always trying to solve, and hence why, because it was made to solve problems, it is always presupposing them: no wonder then that Hegel's dialectic is a triadic, immanent process: there is first the immediate/the given, and then the very “negative space” the given must necessarily gesture towards, but also simultaneously occlude, to be given as /itself/: negativity, THOUGHT: that determination's relating back to the context-condition of its own intelligibility: “Being, pure Being-”: the mark marks the context by which it is made legible to itself as the mark that it is: in other words, the brain must rely on some kind of medial regime to functionally abbreviate its complexity, by contravening its ground it can only problematize it: instead of approaching the task of Knowledge as the task of solving some Problem, we should instead approach it with a mind to how it is the brain generates these “problem ecologies” that it does in the first place: thought as ramified MU: now a lot of this is old hat, but here's where it gets interesting: Bakker says human consciousness as we know it is an artifact of the brain's limited processing power, its inability to correlate all of its contents at once: the more we optimize processing power/intelligence, the more the heuristic utility of consciousness is superseded: Derrida: the interiority of the Thing can only be the non-essence that continuously defers the Thing's identity with itself, from itself: the thing Is, only insofar as it Is Not: again, old hat, but I'm struck by the way Derrida formulates this relationship between interiority and exteriority: as he puts it, the interior is the “deferment of the spatialization of time and the temporalization of space”: sound familiar? This is what I've been saying this whole time: CHRISTIC HUMAN INTERIORITY IS THE ANTI-MOLOCH: THE LAST AND ONLY BULWARK AGAINST TOTAL OMEGA POINT COMPLIANCE.

[Anonymous No.13438825]

THERE IS ONLY LOVE OR THE DIALECTIC: “God is 1, ∞ is the devil” : only beatific simplicity or the interminable Freudian “mazings” of our own becoming, the infinitely smooth Amalthean plane of Love vs. the Malthusian/Atlantean contraction into A = A, that belches Lemuria like exhaust: Lemuria and Atlantis are two halves of one escape vector: Houellebecq's feminine/masculine systems of control each kicked into their respective overdrives, each trying to reproduce the autosexuality of Atum in themselves: man, through the self-inseminating Thought, woman, through the obsolescence of man: man, in trying to cognize his ground, is subsumed to the one medial tracker that is raised to the power of itself: metacognition: the wetiko that has weaponized our own lust for self-transparency against us: the Black Iron Prison of the prefrontal lobe: the tragedy of being human is that the body depends on the integrity of its cells, while thought depends only on the integrity of attention: how much easier it is to be eaten by what only requires SIGHT: reason has only subtlized our predators: the Spenglerian arc of culture civilization has its biological analog in seminal retention release, that is, what Zizek describes as the dilation of the sacred/Pharaonic aura into the ideological disavowal of “I know, but...” is nothing but our hedonic adaptation to the mystique of the cephale: the sacred interiority/Ba of the Pharoah splashed out into the hand-me-down interiority of the peasantry: remember, even ancient Egypt had to deal with a kind of proto-individualism after the collapse of the Old Kingdom: much like how the man who cannot keep his energies self-possessed in the glans, dilates into Lunar orbit... only daily, ritual struggle can rescue us from the hedonic treadmill of actuality, even the Egyptians knew the gods themselves grew weary of their daylight concourse, and had to be rejuvenated nightly in the Duat: thus, Ted K's doctrine of the surrogate activity: surrogate activities sublimate natural channels of energy expenditure towards those more adapted to the hegemony of the machine: but Egypt knew: the only true love of life must consider death holy: death as the Midnight Singularity, the regenerative dreamless darkness of Nun: the brain is eclipse of its ground, CHRIST IS THE ECLIPSE OF THE BRAIN: did you think the Fall was just a dunce cap in paradise? It was to have raped what you alone could have loved. Abraham was redeemed because he had the strength to re-enact the primordial sin: Abraham was able to transmute the violence-surplus of a Malthusian trap universe into beautitude: because the devil is not death but the force of life that clings to life, hence why he is the spirit of deception: but that Christ-like interiority that “stops to talk to the janitor”, that refuses to treat nature like the help, a Christianity without a messianic horizon: that is the true commitment to the earth and affirmation of the human.

[Anonymous No.13438828]

Based

[Anonymous No.13438954]

>>13438809
Hey OP what's the Moloch exactly? Thanks

[Anonymous No.13438969]

EVERYTHING WE DO IS AN OCCLUSION OF THE STILLNESS FROM WHICH WE EMERGED AND TO WHICH WE WILL RETURN

HEAVEN IS HEAT DEATH: THE EQUALIZATION OF ENERGY DIFFERENTIALS

CHRIST WAS AN ASURA OF LIGHT

NOT A HERALD OF VOID/INERTIA, BUT THE INFINITE VIBRATING STRING OF FIAT LUX

THE ARCHONS CAST NERVOUS SYSTEMS LIKE FISHING NETS: BRAINS "KIDNAP" A LITTLE BIT OF THE AETHER TO SERVE AS AN INTERNAL PROCESSOR/"I"

TO MASTER THE MIND IS TO MASTER THE WORLD

WE ARE NOT KANTIAN SINGULARITIES HOVERING IN AN ASPATIAL/ATEMPORAL REALM, NEITHER ARE WE SUBJECTS AT THE BECK AND CALL OF DELEUZIAN FLUIDITY

WE ARE BOTH

WE ARE SINGULARITIES WHOSE WORLDS ONLY COINCIDE WHEN WE WANT THEM TO

MAGE: THE AWAKENING WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING: THE TELLURIC MODEL IS REAL: EVERY "I" IS THE CENTROID OF ITS UNIVERSE

ONLY WHEN SMALL SELVES FEEL THE NEED TO HUDDLE AROUND THE CAMP FIRE OF A CONSENSUAL WORLD IS THERE ONE

THE AKH-SPIRITS OF THE GREAT KINGS AND VISIONARIES OF MANKIND CURRENTLY INHABIT THE CORE OF THE SUN

APHANTASIA TESTS ARE AMARANTH FILTERS: THEY TEST YOUR ABILITY TO MODEL REALITY IN YOURSELF: THE BIRTHRIGHT OF WEININGERIAN GENIUS: THE DROP'S POWER TO REPRODUCE THE OCEAN IN ITSELF

TO SAIL WITH RA ON HIS BARK OF LIGHT IS TO BECOME LIKE HIM

TO BECOME, AT DEATH, AN INTENSIVE, AUTO-DIFFERENTIATING SINGULARITY LIKE ATUM

TO BLOOM INTO A NEW SUN, MILLION-RAYED

[Anonymous No.13438975]

Once you started talking about Derrida you got 2deep4me, damn

[Anonymous No.13439006]

>>13438969
The universe uses selection to dissipate entropy and thus succeed in a higher-level process against other universes. Many alternate realities have already been selected against due to failing to dissipate entropy and thus suffering a 'true end of history. How can we avoid the inevitable collapse of humanity?

[Anonymous No.13439023]

>>13439006
>The universe uses selection to dissipate entropy and thus succeed in a higher-level process against other universes.

Very interesting, where'd did you get this?

[Anonymous No.13439114]

>>13438954
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

tl;dr: a very particular dynamic of complex systems

[Anonymous No.13439588]

>>13438975
Not that difficult. It is being immanent to my body that I am prevented from being just that, a body.

[Anonymous No.13439707]

>>13438809
>THE BRAIN IS THE ECLIPSE OF ITS GROUND
I take it you just saw midsommar?
>the mark marks the context by which it is made legible to itself as the mark that it is:
Yeah, runic signification. I feel like you've gone over this before with Egypt/literate antiquity
>the interiority of the Thing can only be the non-essence that continuously defers the Thing's identity with itself, from itself: the thing Is, only insofar as it Is Not
Again you've explored this excellently through Egypt. Why backtrack?
>>13438825
>“God is 1, ∞ is the devil”
Oh. Of course, you're an anti-Lacanian Langanist. I never forgot, but I definitely forgot that you were this dogmatic: Do you really vest a certainty in an unabetted, hygenic whole? An unmediated transfer? Not that it's early theology or spurious philosophy, it's just... It's a more pagan sentiment than I'm used to seeing from you.

[Anonymous No.13439756]

>>13438809
It pisses me off that I can only understand like 1/6th of this. Must read more.

[Anonymous No.13439767]

>>13439006
The usual hermetic answer is to call down an artificial Kingdom of God (hardline Jews still just call it the Third Temple and make no bones about it's ontology) which can mirror the "infinite momentum" of temporality. Now, given that this is still only a fleeting moment, contained not within the Spirit but as a large-scale Soul fragment and supported by the many bodies cast within its great vale of "languageless bliss." The moment fleets and plurality regains the stronghold of Spirit almost instantly ("momentarily"), trapping the inhabitants in a hotspot of inaccessible entropy; Doomed for eternity. Other methods seem more reliable.

[Anonymous No.13439778]

schizothread

[Anonymous No.13439796]

>>13439707
>I take it you just saw midsommar?

I haven't, go on...

>Do you really vest a certainty in an unabetted, hygenic whole? An unmediated transfer? Not that it's early theology or spurious philosophy, it's just... It's a more pagan sentiment than I'm used to seeing from you.

I do not, what is unmediated can only be what is unconscious. Hence, the emphasis on death and the regenerative power of death.

but I don't think it's a secret I'm trying to rehabilitate certain pagan sentiments. Me trying to communicate certain intuitions of my Greek childhood in contemporary schizo-langue.

Posters like you who I can tell have very individuated minds have given me a looot to think about, but no one yet has convinced me to do a 180. Not that I'm trying to proselytize or saying you are.

[Anonymous No.13439808]

>>13439767
>The usual hermetic answer is to call down an artificial Kingdom of God (hardline Jews still just call it the Third Temple and make no bones about it's ontology) which can mirror the "infinite momentum" of temporality.

Why am I getting PKD vibes from this line? "The empire never ended."

[Anonymous No.13439896]

>>13439796
>>13439796
Fair enough, it's just laced with that sort of occlusion dialogue is all. I assumed that it had reminded you, but I guess I'll have to look at Bakker a little bit.
>Not that I'm trying to proselytize or saying you are.
No, but in some ways it can't be helped. Even Hegel was named a sophist; Langan's still unwelcome as well. "Syncretism is heathen-like heresy, dogmatism is unwanted proselytism. We want Cynics, the True Believers."

[Anonymous No.13439965]

>>13439896
At the same time I do in fact want to de-program that skepticism about an unmediated, "hygenic" whole as you evocatively put it. Why not? Why can't we allow ourselves to believe in nice things anymore? Were men like Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, really that misinformed?

Here's the bakker stuff if you're interested: https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/the-something-about-mary/

More of a response to the Mary's Room argument (not satisfactory imo, though the intuition is sound). Still, interesting resonances with PKD, gnosticism...

[Anonymous No.13440507]

>>13439965
>Were men like Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, really that misinformed?
Don't make me break out the big sniffer, I know you're well acquainted with his thoughts about the antique totalitarians.
>Mary's Room
I don't lean too hard on physicalism or any critique thereof, to me it would be like mistaking scaffolding for a ladder. The importance is in the results of material speculation, in pursuing that third stage to it's fourth conclusion, the subjecification of nature ("natural concepts" from a pluralist perspective). Objectification is crucial, meaningful, it's a wellspring of hope and ingenuity, it upholds society. And it's intrinsically meaningless, it makes a point of keeping that fact always clear and at ready disposal. Subjectification is the only way to God, and it's the greatest bulkwark of atheism for that same reason.

[Anonymous No.13440539]

>>13440507
>Don't make me break out the big sniffer, I know you're well acquainted with his thoughts about the antique totalitarians.

kek, true, but for all his erudition, Zizek still accuses of Plato of a layered, two-worlds ontology, which I think is a defunct interpretation. The Ideas aren't "up there", they're down here, as they can only be down here (which is the crucial point)

>Subjectification is the only way to God, and it's the greatest bulkwark of atheism for that same reason.

I agree, if I had to be cliche, it really is all about balance. Either way I think Bakker misses the point: yes, his (and Langan's, and even Zizek's...) intuition that consciousness is something like the "architect getting lost in his own creation", the point is still that the really wonderful and perplexing thing is that getting lost should come with these things we call qualia in the first place...

[Anonymous No.13440547]

Imagine trying this hard to fit your Jewish lies into reality

[Anonymous No.13440604]

>>13440539
>Zizek still accuses of Plato of a layered, two-worlds ontology
Remember the anecdote about Anscombe? Her critique of Lewis was so thorough it was assumed that she personally opposed the ideas in question. Read his work on Parmenides, he's a clever raccoon.
>"architect getting lost in his own creation"
I'm more pessimistic by inclination, or you could say, "inclined observation" Perception occurs as a mediate stage, the only immediate stage being (of course) observation, and the individual pluralities (which compose our fragmented little reflections of the naive & id-like "Platonic Good" ["the Goof"] and act as a proto-sinthome) are inoperable by the point that I receive them.

[Anonymous No.13440609]

>>13439023
Gleamed it from reading Land

[Anonymous No.13440616]

>>13439778
more like based thread

[Anonymous No.13440617]

>>13440604
Oh I deleted the bit about theology, fuck it
Basically we're the life flashing before God's eyes

[Anonymous No.13440623]

>>13438809
>pretending bakker is anything but cheap genrefiction
what's it like to be a midwit? go to your containment thread and do stay there, please

[Anonymous No.13440625]

>>13440609
That and this comic I saw a few months back first struck me with the idea that humans are not the selectors but the selected. I’ve come to the belief that free will is not truly free, that we are on a continuous crash course with destiny, and that each decision made by everyone, ever, is a further step selected towards the higher-consciousness desired by our universe. If it were not to be, it would not be. I’d attach the comic but am on mobile and IP blocking image uploads.

[Anonymous No.13440646]

>>13440609
>>13440625

I suppose the point of these threads is we should keep energy dissipation only within narrowly defined limits, specifically the "Greek" limit: only dissipate what you have on hand, that quite literally means your fat stores, and not only that, with what you can only dissipate with your hands (and the simple tools they wield).

Ramp that dissipation into overdrive like we're doing now and we kill the human, simple as that. Turn the planet into a smart matter farm, by all means, but don't come crying when all that's left are mechologies and 10 km tall spires of cold hard black nanostuff beeping and booping away until heat death.

>>13440617

I've said all I can say at this juncture. If you wanna keep posting, I'd be happy to read it. I think you were the anti-monist from the last thread.

[Anonymous No.13440664]

>>13440625
How can we think a teleology like this that both accommodates a kind of Landian retrocausal gravity, and a freedom of choice? You could say a junkie's death is bearing down on him from the future every time he decides to feed his addiction, and that would be absolutely true, but only until the day he doesn't.

[Anonymous No.13440684]

>>13440646
I'm an speculatively an anti-monist, logically a monist, and respectively either a pandeist or a kathenotheist. You're right though, the lines have been drawn and the sand castles raised. It was fun while it lasted.

[Anonymous No.13440690]

>>13438809
Shizobro, do even you understand the shit you type? I swear you just randomly name drop philosophers and fill your posts with philosophical jargon to look deep but none of what you write has any depth or genuine meaning whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.13440693]

can someone organize all his posts into a pdf?

[Anonymous No.13440703]

>>13440684
I suppose I'm looking at a kind of subjective pluralism/ontological monism: many windowless centers coinciding with a common syntax. An intuition I'm convinced many others have formulated in their own ways, so I try to stay away from labels.

[Anonymous No.13440708]

>>13440690
I understand everything I type as I understand it.

[Anonymous No.13440745]

>>13440690
I understand a great deal of what he posts, I haven't read all the authors he mentions, so not all of it makes sense, but his posts make a series of sort of metaphorical statements that do have meaning to them. It's the way he topic jumps in the affected schizo-style(i say affected just because it's clearly intentional and not actually mania) that make the posts seem incoherent. It's like he's metaphor hopping, using the end of one metaphor as a piece in a new metaphor.

[Anonymous No.13440766]

>>13440703
>many windowless centers coinciding with a common syntax
Essentially, yes. I've always held that we ardently disagree over minute issues: We're as different as different answers to "How's the wife?"

[Anonymous No.13440776]

>>13440664
>Landian retrocausal gravity, and a freedom of choice
Unironically Diamat. It's defunct, but you're asking for it.

[Anonymous No.13440788]

>>13440646
Who are we to decide what occurs? We are not dissipating the universe, god is. He’s created us to destroy us. It’s our eternal goal to fight that dissipation, so until you get everyone else to believe that, we’ve got a long way to go. >>13440664
Basically this >>13440776
We know enough about how addiction works, not broadening it to the average person prefers an addiction of more milder things is stupid. Your brain is addicted to stuff, that’s why you do it. Chemicals all the way down.

[Anonymous No.13440798]

>>13440616
More like freebased thread.

[Anonymous No.13440814]

>>13440766
Huh. I'm glad that you get what I'm saying. It's really out there.

>>13440788
But that's my point, by fighting that dissipation (here on this planet) you only accelerate it globally.

There's a faction in Orion's Arm, the Efficiency Maximization Paradigm, who are this hyper-negentropist sect that forcibly uploads entire populations into their processing cores to save energy, and anyways long story short their symbol is a perfectly solid, black sphere, which is supposed to represent a dyson shell around a star. See where I'm going? Maximum efficiency is an occlusion of even sunlight (evocatively, for me, an occlusion of the pagan/Mediterranean sun), because letting that light spill into the vacuum is extremely wasteful. Is that we should strive for?

[Anonymous No.13440891]

Could someone post the google doc?

[Anonymous No.13440895]

>>13440788
You don't really "fight" death (ethically and aesthetically speaking, forgive the lying poets), you prepare for it. That's what proper socialization serves, by the way: Proper Death. You know how to die properly and are prepared to do so. One can say we ought to advance or "progress" past this old and most sacred secret of all societies, but it's a sort of Hegelian fact.
>>13440814
Oh, trust me, I'm still a boor. To be rude, I see your holotheism and my "Einstein's Pantheism on crack & tweak" as aligned and sharing an ontological affinity.

[Anonymous No.13440912]

>>13440895
Either that, or adopt the attitude that we never die as long as our descendants live. Life through blood.

[Anonymous No.13440919]

>>13440895
>You don't really "fight" death (ethically and aesthetically speaking, forgive the lying poets), you prepare for it.

Oi, there you have it, the tl;dr of this entire shitposting project. everything else is intended as a mind vaccine for the toddlers still going "n-nuh uh"

Is it really as insipid as "Simba, you must take your place in the circle of life"? Maybe it's only insipid for the toddler

[Anonymous No.13440934]

>>13440919
Gay

[Anonymous No.13440956]

>>13440912
No, that's just the underbelly, the "other side of the coin" to that original/surface fact.
>>13440919
Today's ideology is far more complex; designating that fact as central to investigation is mostly a heuristic to avoid sinking in a swamp of Heideggerian "subjectization vs subjectification" sorts. It was at it's zenith of zeitgeist in the fin de siècle.

[Anonymous No.13440982]

>>13440956
What do you see as the overarching trends of ideology today? I'm still paranoid there's an outside to this intellectual milieu I've immersed myself in that I'm missing out.

I want to know if there are people who have made the same movements as I have and are miles beyond it by now. Or maybe they found these movements unnecessary from the jump. Now obviously there are, but this is what my investigations so far have boiled down to and I'm curious if there are other, radically different ways of looking at it. I mean, you honestly seem farther along but we still largely agree.

[Anonymous No.13441023]

>>13440982
The quickest delineation is to say that [in Modernity] we used to used totality as a method to extend a sort of patchwork over our inability to fully "topologize" (in a Cartesian sense) Man, Nature, Society, God, etc.
Nowadays, the situation is chillingly inverted: We revert to our fully topologized spectra/simulacra of specialisations as a coping mechanism against the sheer horror of [Unconscious: "unknown known," etc] knowing that totality is a thoroughly entitled mechanism with a perceivably-infinite (Landian) frame of reference, occluding our own use of any possible "totalizing methodology." In short, we can't think totally because the world, which used to (as Eckhart put it) "see the world" through us, now sees itself through itself and has for quite some time.

[Anonymous No.13441037]

Ok, I get the gist of blind brain theory, but where do the rape elves with dog penises figure in?

[Anonymous No.13441039]

>>13441023
Very interesting. Both confirms and challenges my angle of approach. I'm glad I'm not off in lala land.

[Anonymous No.13441049]

>>13441037
the Inchoroi are what Bakker thinks the human species ("""Progenitors""") will become/create once we've mastered the techne. I think that, much like his contemporaries, he's a little too fascinated by the darkness to be trusted with these kinds of generalizations. But then again, I'm looking at discord trannies, g/acc, trap culture/ahegao and they're basically proto-Inchoroi to me.

[Anonymous No.13441082]

>>13440623
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.13441119]

What is the ''other side of the coin'' to Cute Kittens (ethically and aesthetically speaking)? Do kittens dissipate enough entropy to warrant their cuteness? Or are cute kitties merely a 'coping mechanism' for junkies who have yet to fully internalize and assimilate 'Simba's Circle of Life'?

[Anonymous No.13441136]

>>13441119
Well akshually, the question is less if kittens dissipate "enough" entropy as much as it is whether they dissipate just the right amount, without getting colonized by the mechanisms of dissipation that would inevitably feed Cute Kitten-ness to the wood chipper of technocapital. Furthermore,

[Anonymous No.13441206]

>>13441119
>What is the ''other side of the coin'' to Cute Kittens (ethically and aesthetically speaking)?
Cute Kittens subsist in the neotonized-affection strata of our presupposed spectra/simulacra [of politics/economics/etc]; i.e. the nostalgic reflex of a post-revolutionary "doomed to never be doomed" subject: Neoliberalism thrives on Cute Kittens.
> Do kittens dissipate enough entropy to warrant their cuteness?
No.
>Or are cute kitties merely a 'coping mechanism' for junkies who have yet to fully internalize and assimilate 'Simba's Circle of Life'?
There's a concurrent thread here that I'd like to pick: Are we prostitutes of a technoindustrial wave of renaissance-vampire-capital, or is the technoindustrial wave merely a [retroactively] metaphysically-prostituted remnant of the Cartesian trilate (the Triangle Trade, materially), resurfacing from the [Platonic] Atlantic to dominant the ruling idpol?

[Anonymous No.13441208]

>>13438809
Aaaaahhh

[Anonymous No.13441240]

>>13441049
I hadn't thought of it that way, anon. Maybe we'll look back in 20 years and realize Bakker didn't go far enough. We're only about 5 years into the tranny plague and parents are already juicing one kid up with hormones and lopping his dick and balls off while his older brother thinks he's an Arctic fox named Luciferos and wore his fursuit to gamgams funeral. Can you imagine how much worse it would be if the technology were there to support it?

[Anonymous No.13441264]

>>13441136
>>13441206
Yes yes, HOWEVER, if every Man and Kitty in existence were to hurdle around a Temporal camp fire ("momentarily"), would they then bloom into an Auto-Differentiating Singularity of pure Being (aka a cute Cat-girl of Weiningerian genius)?

[Anonymous No.13441285]

>Bakker
Ohh shit I just realized it's the author of the second apocalypse.
Welp that would explain all the strange scenarios popping up in this thread.

[Anonymous No.13441291]

>>13441264
Well it would be exhausting but the natural Wittgensteinian conclusion is: the athletic competition of the bigender "Dialectic of Campfire-Causality" (in a Pagan, life-affirmative sense) would necessarily result in but not take part in the creation of [Plural] 'Auto-Differentiating Singularity of pure Being.' The underline of Weininger has to, and this is a matter of principle that no Rhetoric can disinter, DISENTANGLE the rhizomatic roots of the "Gorgian knot." Without any tranfer of this sort, we've relapsed (since you seem to like the lietmotif of late-capitalist cyberdrugs so much).

[Anonymous No.13441394]

Wait so are these books (and the aspect-emperor series) actually good then? /ssfg/ memed me into thinking they sucked

[Anonymous No.13441432]

>>13441394
/lit/ at large would unironically enjoy them. It's all philosophy and degeneracy.

[Anonymous No.13441490]

Interesting. You’re obviously reading the right stuff. But there’s something about the delivery that falls into a cliche of itself. I feel people call whatever they don’t understand schizo, but I feel like you run within this free space not so much to speak freely, but to speak free from writing that would be entertaining to read. You can do whatever the fuck you want, and obviously people like it, but listen to me, you are sitting on too much good material not to develop some eloquence or style that doesn’t scream (I KNOW YOU THINK I AM CRAZY BUT I DONT CARE CUZ ITS IMPORTANT TO SAY THESE THINGS). I can tell you’re excited, that’s good, but why not try to reflect the careful consideration in your writing as you have done in your studies? I dunno why but I feel like suggesting to you reading Capote, his short stuff, articles he did for magazines. What you sound like is a caricature of Philip K Dick written by Pynchon. I like what your saying, and I definitely enjoy reading what your saying, but for the love of God can you attempt to manufacture a way of saying it that doesn’t alienate me from enjoying what your saying? Thanks

[Anonymous No.13441510]

>>13441490
Do you see?

[Anonymous No.13441515]

>>13441510
I see me skimming everytime you post
>muh phil and /his/ pill skillz
It could be better

[Anonymous No.13441524]

>>13441515
>alienate
Your words, not mine. I'm just here for the topology, ma'am.

[Anonymous No.13441561]

>>13441524
Writing is already an effort toward the other, you are extending a hand, but then you go into an epileptic seizure. What kind of fucking way is that to behave anon. Your on earth, the year is 2019, make a little bit of effort not to sound like you JUST figured it out

[Anonymous No.13441590]

>>13441561
The year is 1986, anonnette; I'm surprise you haven't heard. Look into my eyes, can you pierce my gaze with your own?

[Anonymous No.13441711]

>>13441590
BORING

[Anonymous No.13441759]

>>13441049
Dickgirls are already a reality, so...

[Anonymous No.13441765]

>>13441394
>/ssfg/ memed me into thinking they sucked

They fucking like Sanderson.

[Anonymous No.13441846]

>>13441394
It is kinda cool in how it presents cheesy generic OP power fantasy mages and wizards and shows them getting BTFO by people thinking clearly and rationally. Real power in the series is derived from precisely applied intelligence, which is kind of a refreshing take from most other fantasy series that work on the assumption that being able to cast fireballs from your hands means you must be very smart.

The actual writing isn't particularly full of literary pyrotechnics, it is adequate for what the author is attempting, however it does fall in to the trap sometimes of "everyone from the middle ages was a psychotic murdering rapist because there wasn't enough science" Reddit/GOT mindset and this is what draws much of the criticism levelled against the series.

The books were written when the author was phenomenologist/idealist and so isn't really indicative of everything the author believes now, which is a kind of Eliminative materialist position with discreet Landian influences.

[Anonymous No.13441871]

>>13441711
It's all the same when I'm hard, darling.

[Anonymous No.13441883]

>>13438969
Read Penrose.
The post-heat death universe is massless, therefore conformally identical to the first moment of the big bang.

[Anonymous No.13442155]

>>13441490
It's all good. When I'm older I will attempt maybe something more academic as my final shout into the wilderness, but there's just a frequency of thought that can only come out when the style is there to encourage it. I mean, black holes are Atlantean archons? You can't systematize that.

>>13441394
Yes I think it's brilliant. But like that other anon said it can be so relentlessly grimdark sometimes it can strain credulity.

[Anonymous No.13442172]

>>13441883
Now I've always had this suspicion that heat death would revert the universe back to that free entropy state (Chaos/Nun) that preceded it and from which a new singularity would contract. Forget where I read it from.

Lmao are you telling me that heat death = heaven line is on the money? It's funny cause according to the guy I get the Egyptian material from, the Golden Age of the gods (the First Time, or energy-surplus that regenerates the created order every morning) takes place (and is still taking place) in that timeless instant right before it all "banged".

[Anonymous No.13442198]

>>13442172
>the Golden Age of the gods (the First Time, or energy-surplus that regenerates the created order every morning) takes place (and is still taking place) in that timeless instant right before it all "banged".
"The Observance of Observation"
We are regulated by perceptions, physiological and cultural, while the universe as we know it is unregulated by mere perception and is the holographic extension of an "instantaneous" observation without any regulatory perception of an occasion (occluding characteristics of addiction to either thought or sensation at any one time). The speculative thing is that the Law is all that remains, and we [God] are dead in the eyes of it: Logically, we're the extension of a singularity into plurality (simple Platonic speculation about the Parmenidean whole).

[Anonymous No.13442223]

>>13442198
Yes, "an 'instantaneous observation' without any regulatory perception of an occasion". Very well-put. Also reminded of DeLanda's reading of Deleuze, who (although he doesn't say so explicitly), the singularity was like a zygote: the differentiation of an intensive zero, where each fundamental force (like Atum's Ennead) is just a phase-transition of the one, unified force.

Every multiplicity,consequently, participates in this process: a zygote-like differentiation of intensity: the One makes ones.

>"For from thee, the unbegotten one, the begotten one came into being. The birth of the self-begotten one is through thee, giving birth to all begotten things that exists."

Out of "heat death"/Nun, where all possibilities are equalized because all energy is evenly distributed, there are metastable "dips" we call universes, and that metastability lasts so long as the "Logos" or syntax of that universe persists according to its own, internal consistency. Maybe it is consciousness that is driving the Hubble expansion? But that's an insane schizopost for another day.

[Anonymous No.13442249]

>>13441240
There was a period there, around 2014 - 2016ish where I was like "Inchoroi? Guy's read too much fucking Land" but now I look around me and it ain't pretty.

[Anonymous No.13442323]

>>13442223
>Every multiplicity,consequently, participates in this process: a zygote-like differentiation of intensity: the One makes ones.
Yeah, as usual you're on the money. Every time Einstein or Tesla or whoever calls everything 'energy' or 'frequency' I want to scream at them: WHICH ONE? Which one is the Hermetic word of God who ordered the world by word and then made himself a word? There is no occurrence of God, no "Big Other" that walks beside you, except in the non-total/derivative Laws of the expanded instant. I get the weird sense that the whole system of occasional occurrences is a necessary sort of anti-Hegelian, pandeist [Mainländer's speclation] dynamic pattern. Not just what we call syntax, but genuine Voice.
>Maybe it is consciousness that is driving the Hubble expansion?
While this is tantalising, my eyes are set on prodding the (not "delimited infinity, instead) unlimited operative-infinities. the infinities of perception to be found in contemplation of topology and dromology. It's what makes me love cuisine, architecture, etc. It's the physiology of space and speed which acts as a sort of (I think I've put it this way before) "instantaneous matheme" or an occurrence of perception having integrated wholly with occasion.

[Anonymous No.13442334]

>>13442323
oops didn't attach

[Anonymous No.13442347]

>>13442323
I suppose Langan is a bit rigid for you there, his syntax implies a rigidity/logicity that doesn't lend itself so easily to the spontaneity of Voice. I'm reminded of some of PKD's stuff, man has forgotten that the universe is a language, and that even the mundane arrangements of objects in space irradiate meaning, it's just in the interests of the Powers That Be to stifle that perception.

It could just be that the stars are arranged in the most exquisite of orders, while also being indistinguishable from the most random of distributions, like a great, cosmic Rabbit-Duck illusion: something flipped the switch to get us to see it only one way, and it's killing me.

[Anonymous No.13442351]

>>13438809
>CHRISTIC HUMAN INTERIORITY IS THE ANTI-MOLOCH: THE LAST AND ONLY BULWARK AGAINST TOTAL OMEGA POINT COMPLIANCE.

hey alright

[Anonymous No.13442391]

>>13442347
>syntax implies a rigidity/logicity that doesn't lend itself so easily to the spontaneity of Voice
Specifically the gridiron finitude of (Pre-Parmenidean in the case of Langan) Being. The (Pre-Heraclitan, Lacanian) answer is more flexible, and in my most honest opinion, post-Kantian. Langan is the most metamodern Heideggerian I've ever seen, and I almost feel like calling Kant a Langanist is more clinical than otherwise. Anyways:
>while also being indistinguishable from the most random of distributions...something flipped the switch to get us to see it only one way, and it's killing me
All I can say is try to intuit a "cleaner" paradigm of anti-centrality. Centrality is a tendentious set-unto-itself, not really a linking point but more of an Aristotelian "mover," it would be unwise to base your predilections about ethics-aesthetics on those grounds. I remember alluding to the dangerous totalitarian repression of seeing the world as "a giant self-fucking."

[Anonymous No.13442516]

>>13442391
Well, in my defense, that's how the Egyptians saw it (according to my source): Atum is onanistic, creation is onanistic, no matter how much room you give to Heraclitean Flow, it is always immanent to cyclical cosmic time. If it wasn't, it would violate Langan's reality principle (nothing can be posited outside reality without being intelligible enough to be logically circumscribed by it).

Now I totally get what you're saying, how this kind of thinking turns finitude into a flytrap, the self caught in the funhouse of infinite reflexion, but I can't see a way out that doesn't involve death.

I'll leave you with this: there are tantalizing hints of ontological completeness in even the Egyptian doctrine. Cyclicity does not have mean stagnation.

>In the absolute chaos of the infinite expanse of darkness, absence of differentiation and absolute homogeneity, a incredible energy-potential is dormant. The "abyss" of darkness contains the "pleroma" of light called "Atum". Atum, who "created what exists" and who is the "Lord of all things" (CT, utterance 306), "Lord of All" (CT, utterance 167), "Lord of Everything" and "Lord of Life" (CT, utterance 534), is "the origin of all the forces and elements of nature" (Allen, 1988, p.9). His name is a form of the verb "tm", probably a noun of action, meaning both "complete, finish" and "not be". Indeed, Atum completes creation without belonging to the created order.

[Anonymous No.13442551]

>>13442516
See, this is the issue: If the self is ordered according the to the constitution of the uncreated domain, then how is it's dominant form of (contracted to/contained within) appearance not predominantly that same uncreation? So, how are we ontologically incomplete as subjects and not simply objects of divine orchestration which, if instrumentalized properly, will follow suit with the "conductor" (Or "architect" as you prefer)? I mean that genuinely, as the basis of my critical enterprise.

[Anonymous No.13442575]

>>13442551
Are you asking how can human interiority be derived from/rooted in some kind of pre-ontological potentiality (which is always "resisting" the final collapse into determinacy, per Derrida up there, or otherwise rejuvenating creation through its identity with this state, like the Pharaoh) while also conforming to the structure of a manifest universe?

If I'm not misinterpreting, well, that's the mystery ain't it! But please re-phrase if I am.

[Anonymous No.13442598]

>>13442575
>>13442575
You've caught me! And here I thought I was being honest: You've anesthetised and flayed my intentions down to the gesture. Yes, this is my bleeding-raw (I've hardly even jotted down notes), Badiou-esque "destined indeterminacy" of the Real. I'm still unraveling UG Krishnamurti's Mystique to this end. Very incisive of you, making me "wear my
skin" as a gesture towards the anatomical Outside.

[Anonymous No.13442684]

>>13442598
I honestly don't know! I know that, if we deny Strong AI .... and with the Bakker stuff, consciousness being an artifact of poor processing, etc. it stands to reason that we have to: we should expect that as processing power increases, the emergence of consciousness should be less and less likely by default... I really think machines are the next step down Gurdjieff's octave ladder, as we descend, density, determination, law can only agglutinate and there is nothing as programmed as a machine... and perhaps nothing as pure and free as plasma or a star, if we retrace our steps back up the ladder... So I diverge with Langan here, I don't think technology will necessarily maximize telic utility, on the contrary...

But again, that's my point, that indeterminacy is only viable within a certain "pagan" bandwidth, too much one way or the other and it's either Zizek's "flat stupidity of nature" reigning forever and ever, or the iPlanet we're currently creating, where everyone thinks in lockstep because time is icky and indeterminacy is bad.

But in trying to kick death out of the attic he's moved into the living room, ie, into life itself, the death-within-life, or death-as-life, a danger the Egyptians were especially attuned to: too much actuality is dessicating.

As for your question, I don't know fren, I just have to agree with Plato that there are "acts of intellection" that can't be derived from my physical substrate, because they're derived from the topological twist that subjectivity is: there are decisions, thoughts and acts that could only have been carried out if there was observer immanent to this body and immanent to its observation, as it were. Maybe that makes sense, maybe it doesn't.

I'm gonna have to read some Krishnamurti.

[Anonymous No.13442747]

>>13442684
> and perhaps nothing as pure and free as plasma or a star, if we retrace our steps back up the ladder... So I diverge with Langan here, I don't think technology will necessarily maximize telic utility, on the contrary...
Mainländer is a metaphysician who focuses on the specialisation of ontology-into-cosmology. This is his life's work. Mueller-Seyfarth may be lost in translation, but his work's meaning is tied to the "Quasi Stellar" Batz, and the little bit of him that's on reddit contains more than enough fragments to be of use.
>But in trying to kick death out of the attic he's moved into the living room, ie, into life itself, the death-within-life, or death-as-life, a danger the Egyptians were especially attuned to: too much actuality is dessicating.
I can't imagine you're unaware of the VR-Video-Gaming underpinnings of this? Neokantian hypersadism angling towards the creation of pocket dimensions which can mimic demonic sadomasochistic "voluntary torture" as a gladiatorial event constructed as a ritual [your Moloch] to the displacement of Great Decay as a recursive trap (anti-Aztec neopaganism, sort of what you would look like as a heretic).

[Anonymous No.13442784]

>>13442747
>As for your question, I don't know fren, I just have to agree with Plato that there are "acts of intellection" that can't be derived from my physical substrate, because they're derived from the topological twist that subjectivity is: there are decisions, thoughts and acts that could only have been carried out if there was observer immanent to this body and immanent to its observation, as it were. Maybe that makes sense, maybe it doesn't.
>I'm gonna have to read some Krishnamurti
Earlier post deleted halfway. I drew up a whole comparison to Lacan as the "Master of the Symbol" whereas UG is the "Master of the Real," but it suffices to say that UG Krishnamurti had a pathological ego disorder on par with Lacan, except: He lost his soul. He experienced an "unmediated" transfer of the Real ("[non]observance of the full perception of an occasion" in my words) in all of it's dirty totality. Krishnamurti is a master of "unrational" catachresis.

[Anonymous No.13442796]

>>13438825
>the brain is eclipse of its ground, CHRIST IS THE ECLIPSE OF THE BRAIN
lol, which is to say the brain is the eclipse of itself.

[Anonymous No.13442800]

>>13442747
>I can't imagine you're unaware of the VR-Video-Gaming underpinnings of this?

Of course I am, I look around me and these private hell-dungeons these people are constructing through text, or other media, before they can construct it in VR, and all I see is a sickness of health. By that I mean, Schopenhauer's point that health is a negative is exactly right, life is emptiness and boredom is a mark of that emptiness, and so is that state from which it originated, the only thing that's really valuable is the liminal transition between both (the Zep Tepy/First Time), and I don't think it's a coincidence that the Pharaoh is deified by the horizon, not by the earth or sky, but the point at which they meet.


I look at these goobers and I only see people desperately trying to re-stimulate nerves that have sat "out in the Sun" too long (incidentally,I'm positive there's a correlation between circumcision and sexual depravity, at least for those chronic masturbators who are circumcised)

[Anonymous No.13442803]

>>13438809
>>13438825
man, fix your writing. Horribly cluttered. I get that you like trying to larp as a genuis by being an obscurantist, but still.

[Anonymous No.13442809]

>>13442796
Exactly.

>>13442784
Go on. Must the "unmediated" transfer always be an experience of horror, and vertigo? Why not light and paradise, like Plato's Outside?

[Anonymous No.13442858]

>>13439006
Based, I came more or less to this conclusion on my own. Is there anything one could read on this?

[Anonymous No.13442894]

>>13442809
Yes. Those are moments of instant "operative-infinity" (infinity that functions as an extrinsic experience rather than an "intrinsic" datum) which invigorate the body, refresh the mind, and reemerge the Spirit. This is my metamodernist brand of aesthetic recognition, post-Hegelian "metaphysical accelerationism" (that is, retroactive-methodological concurrence through humor, confusion, excitement, etc: the rhetorical flourishes, and also the spatiotemporal frameworks of Taste are particularly important to me). Basically, they imply a fourth stage of untotality ("detotalized whole/detotality").

[Anonymous No.13442937]

>>13442894
Are we talking a kind of ontologized flow-state? Because I absolutely agree, especially how you define it as an openness to what is outside. I hoped with my talk of struggle and the pagan love of the body would have tipped you off to much we agree on this point, but perhaps it already did.

[Anonymous No.13443001]

>>13441039
You are. This philosophy attempts to justify la la land and make it coherent through a second-order la la land.
You're taking a fan philosophy of Land as legitimate lmao

[Anonymous No.13443990]

>>13438825
So you have become mad and the only thing you can write is some Maninlanderean poetic theory? People in philosophy do this, all the time, for fun; there is no need to larp this hard, anon.

[Anonymous No.13444206]

>>13442937
Definitely a special relation to the Outside, a sort of smooth mutual gliding with the peripheries of your world. Ironically, it's a sort of spiritual autarky (as you allude with struggle and and pagan life-affirmation) where you are combating and repelling the barriers to experience so thoroughly, you are so merged in perception and occasion, that youstart to experience the barriers themselves rather than experiencing their failure to merge (the basic phenomenology of experience, failed
[natural] totalisation).

[Anonymous No.13444336]

Hey OP what is an archont ?

[Anonymous No.13444496]

>>13441846
>"everyone from the middle ages was a psychotic murdering rapist because there wasn't enough science"
Everyone is a rapist in the series. Especially the alien scientists whose materialistic worldview turned them into depraved sex monsters.

>this is what draws much of the criticism levelled against the series
No, most of the criticism against the series is due to the philosophical bloat that reads a lot like the OP's amphetamine-induced posts.

[Anonymous No.13444510]

>>13444206
Very interesting, you remind me of Blake and how he characterizes the psyche of the uninhibited, paradaisal man, I forget the exact phrase but it's something like... the gliding of two surfaces over one another, man as the in-between who traverses the Outside as he lets the Outside traverse him. I just don't really remember the phraseology (it was a dense paper) but you're on the money, surprise surprise

>>13444336
Without the schizo-affect, archons are, for me, another word for Shestov's Necessity: death, disease, suffering, time, predation, spiritlessness. The ultimate, hypostasized resistance to natural processes, like a blockage in the current.

Obviously for Shestov these are natural processes, while I just characterized them as the defiance of natural processes. At the same time, they're Being on autopilot: a guy who just wants to eat, suck and fuck is in their thrall without a doubt.

There's a real tension here. Between the Necessity you affirm and the Necessity you don't and never should (which are the archontic domains). Figure it out for yourself, 'cause I sure haven't.

[Anonymous No.13444528]

>>13444496
>Everyone is a rapist in the series. Especially the alien scientists whose materialistic worldview turned them into depraved sex monsters.

You're exaggerating, Bakker has accomplished something masterful in this day and age: writing about depraved sexual violence without coming off depraved himself. The guy's passion for ideas makes even the Inchoroi take a backseat to those ideas.

>No, most of the criticism against the series is due to the philosophical bloat that reads a lot like the OP's amphetamine-induced posts.

I don't trust the average genre reader these days to tell me what is or isn't "philosophical bloat". It's like going to /v/ to talk about Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.13444586]

>>13444528
The issue is that the disjointed screeds on Bakker's inside-out universe were misplaced. They didn't belong in a novel. If you're going to have thicc, disjointed thoughtstreams, they might as well serve a purpose like in The Sound and the Fury or be more concise as in The Four Revelations of Cinial'jin.

He should have spent that time filling out the world or adding depth to flatter characters like Kayutas, which is something Bakker openly admitted after TUC was published. The most damning evidence is that TGO and TUC were originally going to be the same book - thicker, tighter, meatier - but his publisher convinced him to cut it in half, forcing Bakker to fill the rest out with Proyas's madness after getting assraped, which was the actual slog of slogs.

It's one of my favorite fantasy series, but it has serious mistakes. Because of those mistakes, Bakker may never be able to find a publisher for the last two books he'd planned on writing.

[Anonymous No.13444623]

>>13438809
>>13438825
>>13438825
formerly chuck's

[Anonymous No.13444627]

>>13444510
>the psyche of the uninhibited, paradaisal man
I have a diminished sense of Schopenhauer's feeling about Leopardi, that of acquainting myself with a "spiritual brother." Not that I'm near their or Blake's range, of course, just appreciative of the tie-in. I've needed a good aesthetic work to chew through for a little while.

[Anonymous No.13444648]

>>13441765
No we dont

[Anonymous No.13444687]

>>13444586
That's fair. I found the climax to TUC to be extremely underwhelming. Aurang and Aurax built up for 7 books, dispatched in 3 pages. Shae, nothing. The Dunyain rule the Consult? Zzzzz.

Kellhus's motives are still obscure. Did he make a deal with Ajokli to eventually supplant him? Why make a deal to stop the Consult with maybe the only entity in his universe that makes them look like the teletubbies?

I love everything the man writes, but TUC had its flaws without a doubt. And god I'm tired of Overlook's whining. Rain World, John C. Wright, Second Apocalypse... brilliant, genre-defying works/authors that struggle so hard to find their audience, and they shouldn't have to. It's all so tiresome.

>>13444627
If you're talking about Blake, here are the titles to those papers:

“‘Visibility Should Not Be Visible:’ Blake’s Borders and the Regime of Sight.” The Wordsworth Circle 25 (Winter 1994): 29-36.

“‘The Innocence of Becoming Restored:’ Blake, Nietzsche, and the Disclosure of Difference.” Studies in Romanticism 29.1 (1990): 91-113.


Forget which one it was. Anyways, the author, David Clark, has an extremely verbose but eloquent style. It's a damn shame he's hard to find. Now God himself knows I'm nothing special, but it's nice to be reminded what I brainlet I still am.

[Anonymous No.13445143]

I don't understand 90% of OP, what can I read of similar complexity to make this understandable?

[Anonymous No.13445155]

>>13445143
Hello OP, responding to your own cringy threads with thinly veiled compliments as always?

Saddest poster on this board next to Behead All Satans self-shill.

[Anonymous No.13445192]

>>13445143
here's the abbreviated ELI5:

brains use rules to construct our perceptions. these rules are not parts of our perception, so we can never be sure of what rules are actually at play, behind the scenes.

because these rules are used to solve problems, that is, because they screen for one kind of data and block out the rest, the brain is always making up problems because that is its evolutionary job.

this is what hegel was talking about, we can never just perceive something as it is, it is always referring to some kind of environment/context because it is part of its environment like the brain is

because the brain is so complex, it needs this thing called an "I" to pick up the slack and kind of receive and deal with its content that it couldn't if it was just a machine "running in the dark"

so human consciousness is an effect of a biological limitation. if we get rid of this biological limitation, like through AI, then we get rid of what makes us human.

for derrida, what is inside something is always what is frustrating its identity with itself. a rock just fucking is, a human being never "just is", he is evolving because there is an awareness inside him

post 2:

either we remain still or let ourselves fall down thought's rabbit hole.

accelerationism is the enemy. or, an enemy.

because we're always "in front of" of our programming, then it's very easy to become enslaved to that programming, and what's worse, to become that program's sock puppet

we're being enslaved to the prefrontal lobe and the way it forces us to always engage, always reflexively think about the world, which makes us want to manipulate it and stand above it

the only way out is refusing to let that program assert itself.

christ is the exemplar of that: he affirms human interiority as human interiority, not as a step to the Next Big Thing, by his love humanity is saved from becoming just another video on God's trending tab, here today, gone tomorrow

if you want to pursue the Moloch God-AI, then be my guest, it'll just kill everything we know and love (like we're seeing now)

the rest is fairly straightforward. and if you want a recommendation, pic related

[Anonymous No.13445195]

>>13445155
I have never responded as my own fanboy, you're huffing gas

[Anonymous No.13445199]

>>13445155
is there a pdf of that yet? Seems like an easy way to get him to go away, but people care about him so little they won't even do that lol.

[Anonymous No.13445222]

>>13438809
Hey someone who's heard of Bakker. Kellhus did nothing wrong and is probably a powerful ciphrang on the outside now

[Anonymous No.13445226]

>>13445222
On the contrary, I read a theory that Kellhus engineered the whole thing so he can set up an Oasis in the Outside and wage war on the Hundred themselves

In a perfect world, there would be a third trilogy, and it would be all about that.

[Anonymous No.13445238]

>>13445226
So Kellhus tricked the trickster God and wanted to get salted? Wanted to lose his holy war? Wont he have trouble fighting the no god if hes on the outside?

[Anonymous No.13445246]

>>13445238
I honestly don't know man, I still can't make heads or tails of his motivations. The No-God is the lesser of two evils for him, I would think.

[Anonymous No.13445397]

Alien Topology

"Diachronous strata" of human culture are best considered as such: geological morphemes, specifically [currently] as allomorphs of the 1950s hyperstasis and the 1980s hypertrophy.
Interment and Internment are reversed: Life is a Pythagorean trap of megalothallic proportions, while death is the "freedom of the grave" as Solonian happiness.
Allocation in bifurcated method is more like sadomasochism than any other dichotomy: consequently (but not ultimately), the narrativisation of the "glutted subject" becomes [retrocausally] perverse and must be gastro-castrated into some form of trilate.

[Anonymous No.13445411]

>>13445397
I find your posts tantalizingly incomprehensible. Where do you get this shit?

>Interment and Internment are reversed: Life is a Pythagorean trap of megalothallic proportions, while death is the "freedom of the grave" as Solonian happiness.

This.

[Anonymous No.13445428]

Devious Continence

General reclusion is symptomaptic of social OS-certification: We're a machine's amachinate impulses realised as continuael moments of self-awareness and interactivity which inversely compose an agency as non-machinery; We're the outcasts.
The neo-narrative [neronarrative] of metacognition in the postmodern age was the exaggeration of "health" and "constitution" as epistemological constructs, separate from even the hindmost of ontology. Hyper-hybridisation is too recursive to break n-gravity.
Realising the the release of the entire "egocentricity mechanism" from any epistemological grounding unleashed catastrophe on the modern mind, making the postmodern "overgrounding of episteme" a natural [perfunctory] defunction of capability.

[Anonymous No.13445446]

>>13445411
fresh off the presses

[Anonymous No.13445455]

>>13445428
Before I inevitably die from an amphetamine overdose, I bestow upon you the dubious honor of schizoposter II. My shitposting daimon will be in contact shortly.

Cheekiness aside, your post makes a great deal of dream-sense, because I can't quite comprehend all of it.

Here's some dank shit I think you'll like:

>The Egyptian is interested in the first stir of creation, for according to his view on temporality, the beginning is the crucial moment. As time is inherently degenerative, namely running away from the source of energy towards its own depletion, the "Golden Age" of genesis is the pivotal concept here. Only by returning to the "zep tepi" is it possible to completely regenerate.


>The First Occurrence is never "over". It happens as long as Atum leads the deities. When this ends, creation flashes into oblivion. Neither is creation "closed". The natural depletion of the cosmos can be curtailed by accessing the eternal pool of energy of the initial conditions of the universe, envisaged as an eternal moment of divine plenitude, differentiation and celebration outside the universe. This divine totality is symmetrical (the Ennead) but contains a symmetry-break (Seth). Although outside creation, it is accessible and its power can be tapped and harvested. Creation is rejuvenated by this energy, called into being by divine differentiation.

an extropic Outside is waiting in the wings as the clock of being winds down? time is nothing but the movement of our alienation from the Source? hmmmmmmmm......

[Anonymous No.13445456]

>>13445428
>Realising the the release of the entire "egocentricity mechanism" from any epistemological grounding unleashed catastrophe on the modern mind,

but aren't we seeing the opposite, the autistic hunger for epistemological grounds? elaborate.

[Anonymous No.13445458]

>>13445428
>We're a machine's amachinate impulses realised as continuael moments of self-awareness and interactivity which inversely compose an agency as non-machinery; We're the outcasts.

very nice.

[Anonymous No.13445507]

>>13445456
Hold on, big boy. You're just always hungry for the next bite, eh?

Ahistoricising Delirium (And Anti-Delusion)

Lithium batteries as Q-tips, pencil erasers, and pieces cylindrical stick-gum are possible examples of unfunctory Genius; Neither children nor animals are safe from the Real-Mereological nihilism of "fate as the entropic reversal of thermodynamism."
Deontotrinitarian "squelching of interpassive communification" is the most monastic form of [post-Christian] evangelism, escaping the evental circumferences of all it's explosive [expansive] "cartesian conperimeters" unto spatiotemporality.
Hypersensitivity manifests as the delineation between motif and lietmotif in the simplest way: method of action as narrativist and intrinsic versus ontic action as instrumentalist and extrinsic [autistic, as you astutely cornered me to note].

[Anonymous No.13445551]

>>13445455
I accept your honor, and I greatly appreciate it. It's decided, then: Our daimons shall make the most splendid of trades.
>an extropic Outside is waiting in the wings as the clock of being winds down?
Those two excerpts are really quite special. Egyptian metaphysics is always so... round.
>time is nothing but the movement of our alienation from the Source?
I would lean more on Whitehead here and insist on the cicrumlogist aspects to this "Source," as it is so well known to us. I even double-step him a league down the path by turning his d-wheel bifurcation into a quaternary [and physiopropelled] geopsyche.

[Anonymous No.13445579]

>>13445507
>"fate as the entropic reversal of thermodynamism."

What do you mean by this?

>Deontotrinitarian "squelching of interpassive communification" is the most monastic form of [post-Christian] evangelism, escaping the evental circumferences of all it's explosive [expansive] "cartesian conperimeters" unto spatiotemporality.

What do you mean by this?

The rest is lucid and intuitive, to me.

>>13445551
>Those two excerpts are really quite special. Egyptian metaphysics is always so... round.

But never quite closed as the Malthusians/archons would want it. Perhaps predation in nature is already a sign the war in heaven was lost? Being that-which-is, but wracked by an ineffable hunger for what is-not, and forever closed to it, being resigns itself to eating itself (t. Evola).

[Anonymous No.13445644]

>>13445579
>What do you mean by this?
That was the last volley, so I'd recline and explain:
I see dromology as escaping the perfunctory [background radiation] circuits of life in the specific way you established a while back: life-as-death (Kantian I-judgement, etc) and the undeadness of virtualisation. Not good; "Undead Nietzsche" doesn't quite cover it.
>Deontotrinitarian "squelching of interpassive communification"
Have you ever met a Jesuit? They're fiercely autistic, some of them: Father Garrpe is like a proto-postmodern "subjectification with NEET-like characteristics."
>escaping the evental circumferences of all it's explosive [expansive] "cartesian conperimeters" unto spatiotemporality.
I feel like this is self-explanatory, maybe I'm erring into "too much iris" territory: Badiou describes his political exteriority as inevitable in the Maoist sense: subjects must abandon all "Western" or "Eastern" dialectics in order to integrate a full-causal mechanism of non-dialectical/naive monist revolution or "full-body-politic [E-]motion." It's autism as a political-economic analysis, a reductivist form of Maoism that is not at all incomparable to the turn Posadas makes from Trotskyism. "Leftism" has so many branches laden with that Platonic-Recursive fruit, it just fits in so sweetly as the "monoceros" of totalitarian ontologies.

[Anonymous No.13445679]

>>13445644
All right I got you.

>I see dromology as escaping the perfunctory [background radiation] circuits of life in the specific way you established a while back: life-as-death (Kantian I-judgement, etc) and the undeadness of virtualisation. Not good; "Undead Nietzsche" doesn't quite cover it.

Very well put.

I enjoy your posting.

[Anonymous No.13445689]

>>13445579
>Being that-which-is, but wracked by an ineffable hunger for what is-not, and forever closed to it, being resigns itself to eating itself
Thing of it like a surgical procedure under duress and you start to get more of that inkling of Mainänder's subtle cosmology (pardon the incoming wall):
>We have only provisionally assigned Will and Mind to the essence of God and comprehended the deed of God, as if it was a motivated act of volition, in order to gain a regulative principle for the mere judgement of the deed. On this path also, we have reached the goal, and the speculative reason may be satisfied.
>We may nevertheless not leave our peculiar standpoint between immanent and transcendent domain (we are hanging on the small thread of existence above the bottomless pit, which separates both domains) in order to re-enter the solid world, the safe ground of experience, before having loudly declared one more time, that the being of God was neither a connection of Will and Mind, like that of humans, nor an intertwinement of Will and Mind. The true origin of the world can therefore never be fathomed by a human mind. The only thing which we can and may do – a right which we have made use of – is to make the divine act accessible for us by analogy, but while always keeping the fact in mind, that
>now we see through a glass darkly (1. Corinthians 13)
>and that we are dissecting according to our apprehension an act, which, as unitary act of a basic unity, can never be comprehended by the human mind.
>The result of does nevertheless satisfy. Let us meanwhile not forget, that we could be equally satisfied, if it were barred to us, to darkly mirror the divine deed; for the transcendent domain has vanished without trace in our world, in which only individual wills exist and beside or behind which nothing else exists, just like how before the world only the basic unity existed. And this world is so rich, answers, if fairly questioned, so distinctly and clearly, that every considerate thinker lightheartedly turns away from the “shoreless ocean” and joyfully dedicates his whole mental power to the divine act, the book of nature, which lies at every moment open before him.

[Anonymous No.13445748]

>>13445679
>>13445679
Oh if I were a Jungian, the sense of synchronicity would certainly be unnerving; then again, it's only so inevitable (smaller, opposite excerpt--Caraco):
>The cities in which we live in are schools of death, because they are dishuman. Each one of them has become a den of noise and of stench, for each of one has became a chaos of buildings, in which we ammass ourselves in millions, losing our life’s reasons. Unfortunates without escape, we feel to have put ourselves, willing or not, in the labyrinth of the absurd, from which we will leave only when we will die, for our destiny is to continue to multiply ourselves, only to die in great numbers. At every turn of the wheel, the cities in which we live in advance slowly one against the other, desiring only to confuse with each other: it’s a run towards the absolute chaos, in the noise and in the stench. At every turn of the wheel the price of the grounds go up, and in the labyrinth which devours the free space the revenue of the investiments builds up, day after day, hundreds of walls. It’s necessary that money give revenues and that the cities in which we live in advance, so it’s right that the houses double their height at every generation, even if the water is missing half of the days. The builders only desire to escape the destiny that they prepare for us, moving towards the countryside.

[Anonymous No.13446070]

>>13445155
I legit stumbled on /lit/ looking for the better boards on here just to run into a bunch of threads where the posters sound completely delirious and schizophrenic.

I think I might just be too dumb to understand what the hell you're all talking about, so I wanted to know what I can read to begin to piece together what all of this is.

[Anonymous No.13446084]

>>13446070

See:

>>13445192

[Anonymous No.13446153]

>>13446070
Welcome, and you're welcome. Most of it is probably just too esoteric, for you at least, it's all rather mundane nitpicking (as we both concede). The real groundwork and ongoing groundskeeping is beyond us and often very old.

[Anonymous No.13446424]

>>13444336

Ontological bureaucrat.