/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17107124]

>you will never know the thing-in-itself

[Anonymous No.17107139]

>>17107124
>you will never have unmediated non-representational access to consciousness

[Anonymous No.17107150]

>>17107124
There is nothing to be known about "the thing in itself". Therefore it is completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.17107172]

>>17107150
You must live a very boring life

[Anonymous No.17107188]

>>17107124

> He hasn't contemplated the transcendental field through the Épochè and an unbiased analysis of the result of a phenomenological reduction, reconstituted into a pure logico-phenomenology.

[Anonymous No.17107217]

>>17107124
>mom found the noumenal again

[Anonymous No.17107294]

>>17107124
>you will never have access to anything other than the hyperreal, all your digging will only lead to a further proliferation of simulacra telescoping into the desert of the real

[Anonymous No.17107307]

>>17107124
>>anon says you will never know the thing-in-itself
>tfw I know the thing-in-itself

[Anonymous No.17107471]

>>17107124
>tfw death is the horizon of all my possibilities but despite the mine-ness of my death I shall never know it

[Anonymous No.17107513]

>>17107139
thats literally what consciousness is, you cant see the forest through the trees even though its in front of your face

[Anonymous No.17107517]

The gap between the thing-in-itself and our knowledge of it represents a gap both in the thing-in-itself and us as subjects able to have knowledge. It is this shared gap that allows us to conceptually grasp objects and our own subjectivity at all.

[Anonymous No.17107523]

I think I referred to something that sounded like that when I wrote out my thoughts on reality while tripping balls on mushrooms in a house full of tweakers with a baby crying down the hallway when I was a teenager

[Anonymous No.17107546]

>>17107513
In any experience of consciousness I have to rely on representation. All representation must represent something. So what lies under the representation? If there is nothing other than tools of representation can I be said to be experiencing things, or is it only the tools that are doing the thinking or experiencing? It fucks with me anon, clearly there is an underlying thing or place from which these things must spring forth. Short of taking psychedelics I have no access to it, let alone constant access to it.

[Anonymous No.17107651]

>>17107523
replying to my own comment to say I just dug my old journal out, and it turns out that wasn't what I wrote. It was ''what-is''

[Anonymous No.17107730]

>>17107546
>In any experience of consciousness I have to rely on representation.
Things are represented ‘to’ conciousness, the objects of conciousness are representations, but conciousness or sentience itself is not a representation, or an object represented. The experience of conciousness is the direct and immediate taking-place of concious presence, it is self-manifesting or self-luminous and it in itself involves no representation. Sensory perceptions and mental activity like thoughts are witnessed by this self-revealing formless sentience which persists in between the changing mental phenomena it witnesses. If consciousness were experienced as representation this would presuppose another locus of sentience to which that consciousness would be presented or represented, but this does not tally with our experience of having an undivided consciousness.

>All representation must represent something. So what lies under the representation? If there is nothing other than tools of representation can I be said to be experiencing things, or is it only the tools that are doing the thinking or experiencing?
Insentient tools don’t have the capability to think and experience on their own, they exist for the benefit of another whom they serve, the indwelling consciousness.

>It fucks with me anon, clearly there is an underlying thing or place from which these things must spring forth. Short of taking psychedelics I have no access to it, let alone constant access to it.
Try reading Adi Shankara’s works, he explains how to do this anon

[Anonymous No.17107820]

>>17107730
>but conciousness or sentience itself is not a representation,
Of course, but I only have access to it via representation. Short of psychedelics there is no unmediated experience that I’ve found. All access, even to our sense of self or desire is reliant on the signifier.
> Insentient tools don’t have the capability to think and experience on their own
Of course not. But if access to thinking qua activity is only given by representation then our thinking is fundamentally limited by that which the representation can give access to. Language becomes the horizon of all thought; further, thought becomes the linking of representation to itself. Tools cannot think, but are fundamentally the horizon of though, and that which allows thought to exist. Art closes in on it. Drawing off Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Lacan, Stiegler, discussions with frens who are into this like yourself and Baudrillard for these thoughts.
> Try reading Adi Shankara
Where to start? Currently working through Stiegler.

[Anonymous No.17107836]

>>17107820
Also I’m not upset by these facts, I’m just very interested in Being and I’ve yet to find anything other than forms of representation at the core of being.

[Anonymous No.17107861]

It's literally in front of you. Westerns are so dumb, lmao.

[Anonymous No.17107873]

>>17107861
>broooo just like, give up desire and stuff broooo

[Anonymous No.17107880]

>>17107124
the real thing in itself was the spirit we became along the way, bro

[Anonymous No.17107898]

>you will never access the world of forms

[Anonymous No.17107931]

>>17107898

Ngl, I'd put my hatred of anime aside for an isekai into the Realm of Forms (but all Forms are cute girls).

[Anonymous No.17108269]

>>17107820
>Of course, but I only have access to it via representation.
Consciousness is always accessible to itself in the sense that it is always self-revealing. This nature of being self-revealed cannot be made accessible through the medium of or through a reliance upon exterior things because if this self-luminosity were not manifested until exterior things allowed it to do so then it would not be self-luminous but its luminosity would be contingent upon other things. If consciousness was not self-luminous and were instead produced at each moment by that moments set of thoughts and sensory perceptions, then the changing inputs at every second would produce a different consciousness at each moment, but the continuity and identity of sentience from moment to moment is self-evident. The direct and immediate way in which you experienced consciousness while tripping is (if you are speaking of what I think you are) actually how our consciousness always is, but normally this is obscured to people and people typically consider the reflection of consciousness in their intellect to be their actual consciousness. The psychedelics just temporarily pulled away the curtains of your normal modes of thought which obscure this.
> But if access to thinking qua activity is only given by representation then our thinking is fundamentally limited by that which the representation can give access to
Thinking represents exterior things, but the activity of the mind is directly given to or witnessed by consciousness, the mind represents things but this mental representation is itself directly revealed instead of again undergoing another representation. Using the mind makes one conform to its limits, but there are ways of transcending the limits of ones mind, i.e. in non-discursive spiritual or metaphysical realization.
>Where to start?
I recommend beginning with a book about Hindu philosophy or Vedanta first so you have the requisite foreknowledge and grasp of terminology needed to really understand him, examples include ‘Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta’ by Guenon or “Advaita Vedanta a philosophical reconstruction” by Deutsche.

After that I recommend that people begin with his set of 8 Upanishad commentaries sold as a 2-book compilation, translated by Gambhirananda. After that you can read his other Upanishad commentaries, Gita commentary, and then his other works if you still want to at that point.

[Anonymous No.17108324]

>>17107124
More like "ding an suck" am I right or am I right?

[Anonymous No.17108660]

>>17107546

"Directness" is a spook of the natural attitude. Once you have bracketed away your ontological assumptions, it loses all it's meaning and problematic nature.
As for representations, you've stumbled upon's Brentano's discovery, that all mental acts are either representations or based on representations. Nothing underlies representation in mental acts, in the same causal way that something might underlie a physical event, they do not subscribe to causality, but to intentionality.

[Anonymous No.17108695]

>>17107898
i would nakadashi each and every single one of those tight whores

[Anonymous No.17108798]

>>17108269
To clarify: when I say that this is what everyone’s consciousness is like at all times, this is not to say that they already experience it as such and are cognizant of it, but rather this is how everyone’s consciousness or sentience is when isolated from its objects, this is the transparent and formless window of consciousness through which everything else takes place, and then the normal way of perceiving the world and mind etc are then superimposed upon this due to spiritual ignorance. This leads to the unchanging consciousness appearing to become the changing mind to the ignorant, like how a red cloth placed behind a crystal makes the crystal appear to take on the red color. Thus people consider that their consciousness is like a changing entity with attributes and is located in the changing mind/intellect without realizing that consciousness is actually the transparent and unchanging light which reveals the intellect. What you are experiencing right now is just this unchanging consciousness appearing as though it were delimited by and differentiated into name and form; but all the while it remains what it is even under the appearances.

[Anonymous No.17109279]

>>17107931
Could the ideal form of a woman be anything but an anime girl? It is either exaggeration or perfection, but if it were exaggeration then millions of people wouldn't be so infatuated by it.

[Anonymous No.17110257]

>>17109279