/hyperlit/

[Anonymous No.19311075]

ITT we pretend to argue about ideologies and philosophers that don't exist

[Anonymous No.19311120]

I don't know why we even debate. The Scatologicality of the Universe has been proven time and time again. Our limited Being is clearly the excrement of a higher being. Expirments show time and time again that we are the shit of a God, unused waste product being removed.

[Anonymous No.19311146]

>>19311120
This is just Bataille, anon...

[Anonymous No.19311162]

>>19311120
Man this board is full of a bunch of French loving losers, also read Pugliesi and you'll learn why you feel guilt for existing.

[Anonymous No.19311163]

>>19311075
Scholistico-warlordism already brfo every other ideology and I'm tired of pretending it didn't.

[Anonymous No.19311165]

>>19311120
Yes, but there's still distinctions to be made, especially when it comes to what ontological plane you adscribe to excrement. You seem to be working with Klovok's concept of excrement which is pure waste, but as Cund says in his Critique of Pure Excrement, excrement contains in itself not only a byproduct of a first substance but the essence of that first substance itself. God has to produces a density in his bowels in which you find enzymes, secretions, etc. So it's not like the excrement is just a pure waste that goes through the void into existence. In God's bowel the same elements of divinity itself are passed unto the excrement so that the final product still contains the essence of the same first subtance, and that is God's gift to us, to maintain the essence of divinity even if it can only be passed through excrement.

[Anonymous No.19311175]

Hui-an's commentary on the Herukaśmasāna-sūtra explains that the entire universe is contained in a drop of blood and that religious precepts against killing were developed in ignorance of the esoteric texts. Hui'an was of course in the employ of the Tang court so it was natural for him to justify violence, particularly state violence. But he takes it so much further in arguing that non-violence or non-harm is in fact only achieved through bloodletting of "transmigratory beings" as it reduces their attachment to bodily existence. He describes 12 methods of "bloodletting" the most brutal of which involves the ritual sacrifice of "enemies of heaven" by turning their bodies upside down before execution so that equipose is achieved of their alchemical humors before death

[Anonymous No.19311177]

>>19311163
Scholistico as in medieval Catholic Scholasticism?

[Anonymous No.19311188]

Crypto anarcho-judaism is stupid. Why spend all that time debating the purpose of Yahweh if you're not going to actually worship him in the first place?

[Anonymous No.19311194]

>>19311175
Hui-an has a very interesting list of students, apparently Shui Zhunen was one of his students later in his lifetime. Interesting considering Zhunen's political quietism, I wonder if Hui-an was around when Zhunen formulated his idea regarding the impossibility of real human connection and the futile nature of statehood. Considering Hui-an believed state power was proof of their heavenly linage, I doubt he'd approve.

[Anonymous No.19311200]

>>19311188
Anon they think the chosen people are a mobile temple until the time of the Third Temple, when they say they make sacrifices within themselves it's in that context. This is also why they stress individualism (or at leas it could be described that way, it's something more akin to natural living in their view).

[Anonymouṡ No.19311207]

>>19311162
>read Pugliesi and you'll learn why you feel guilt for existing.
The trouble with Pugeliesi is his life is so much more interesting than his books. Like the story of his one and only meeting with Stirner, where he kept saying "SPOOK THIS, MY LITTLE FRIEND!" and pinching Stirner's nose. I bet a lot of people who knew Stirner secretly wanted to do that but just didn't have the nerve.

[Anonymous No.19311217]

>>19311207
The 19th century was an interesting time, just how it is. Shame Pugliesi never met Carlyle or Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.19311229]

Have you guy's heard about the new Hegelian Propulsion Drives developed at CERN? They apparently work by sublating being into becoming. Apparently they will allow us to travel across the universe almost instantly.

[Anonymouṡ No.19311249]

>>19311217
Carlyle certainly knew about him. I think Pugliesi is underrated because he's one of those people who had a huge influence on other leading thinkers, but was more-or-less unknown to the general public.

For example, Ezra Pound, I believe, actually translated his "Phenomenology Of Pre-Intentionalism", although it was never published. (Of course Pugliesi wrote PoPI in Romanian and Ezra Pound couldn't speak Romanian, so I don't know how good a translation it was.)

[Anonymous No.19311260]

>>19311194
Zhunen is pretty divergent but you can definitely see his teacher's influence. Think about why human connection is impossible; it's the earth element of body which prevents the joining of blood. Zhunen does not spend much time elaborating this, not because it is less important to him, but because it is so obvious to him

[Anonymouṡ No.19311268]

>>19311229
I heard something about that. Apparently they think it should be possible to break up being into "becoming" and "begoing" and then synthesize the two into "bethereing". But logically it would only work if someone at the destination spot simultaneously used an identical drive to come here. Otherwise it's going to play havoc with conservation of momentum, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.19311276]

I think esoteric Khanism will sweep the world in the next few years and finally do away with techno-urban confucianism that's been dogging humanity since the ancient times.

[Anonymous No.19311281]

As elegant and enticing as the texts are, Franciscus Slingerford's forays into southweastern cryspticism were ultimately very shallow. He entirely misunderstood the symbolic import of the Mongolopotamian creation myths he learned from Theodorius Fichtenflock's translation of the Ammaghadavarthainopomapetil'ycyricon.
As a Welsh passionalist, despite his massive issues with the growing currents of Schneiderist thought in his homeland, he could never quite separate himself from his native, secular point of view.

[Anonymous No.19311291]

>>19311260
>it's the earth element of body which prevents the joining of blood
I thought his whole thing was that no human can understand something so close to itself? That's why he argues the relationship between pet and owner, and servant and master is the closest to a real connection no?

[Anonymouṡ No.19311324]

>>19311281
>Franciscus Slingerford'
Wow, now there's a name I've not heard in a while. Interesting fellow for sure. Did you know he translated Heidegger into Welsh? Not only that, but into Welsh rhymed couplets. He said it was actually a big handicap for H. having to do all his thinking in German.

>he could never quite separate himself from his native, secular point of view
You're not being quite fair to him here, I think. He said quite clearly that much of pre-literate Mongolian ontology may remain forever outside the grasp of Western thought.

[Anonymous No.19311362]

>>19311291
It's a bit tricky but you have to remember Zhunen splits out "self" in the sense of an aggregated site of experience which constantly comes and goes (momentariness) and "greater self" in the sense of unmediated experience. The reason one can know a pet or subaltern better than an "equal" is because one assumes those seen as above or below the self are closer to a pure experience, since the conditions or constrictions they partake of are unequal with the observer, who is most aware of his own constrictions. So to develop a relationship with what is outside the small or momentary self is to know the great or unmediated self. But this is where it comes back to Hui-an, because that small self, as a "basin of blood" already contains the entire universe, it just cannot know that unmediated self so long as the blood is unperceived. And really, both dogs and servants are small selved in the phenomenal sense, as is the observer. Hence the famous verses of Hui'an that form the core of Zhunen's analysis "For the blood of the universe, there is no wound which does not open."

[Anonymous No.19311372]

>>19311217
>he doesn't know about the letters

[Anonymous No.19311398]

Honestly all of you make me ashamed since nobody has mentioned Hyper-transublimationtarianism once.

[Anonymous No.19311402]

>>19311249
Yeah but "knowing of someone" in the 19th century doesn't exactly leave behind records. Also, Pugliesi was Italian, why'd he write PoPI in Romanian?
>>19311372
Nietzsche's sister forged them, you now this anon. Be silly elsewhere.
>>19311362
Then is the small selved-ness of the other is not that far from the regular relationship, only in so much that the subject cannot parse external experience?

[Anonymous No.19311412]

>>19311398
How can you be a TradCath and a congregationalist anon, it does not make sense

[Anonymouṡ No.19311440]

>>19311402
>Pugliesi was Italian, why'd he write PoPI in Romanian?
It's like that quote by Charles V: “I speak Spanish to God, Italian to Women, French to Men, and German to my Horse.” Pugliesi said something similar didn't he? "I write Epistemology in German, Phenomenology in Romanian, my diary in Italian and Pornography in French." Something like that.

[Anonymous No.19311443]

>>19311412
Only to the surface level thinker. Once one recognizes that the priest is only the accidental form and that, through the holy mysteries of the of the Church that his essence is, in fact, the Pope we can now see that each congregation is administered by his most holy Bishop of Rome which grants him full papal authority

[Anonymous No.19311448]

>>19311324
His translations are better than his own written work. He was ultimately a stylist, one the Welsh language will never be grateful enough for. His work with La Papillonne Téléphonne by Jacquephonse Didiérre and Ünd Strickenfïckten Lichtenflaügel by Heinz Hitler come to mind.

[Anonymous No.19311465]

>>19311402
>Then is the small selved-ness of the other is not that far from the regular relationship, only in so much that the subject cannot parse external experience?
Well for Zhuzen, who is said to have hated the sight of blood, that is very much so, we are all small selves exoterically and to arrive at unmediated self is an obscure possibility. But Hui-an believed that the inability to know externalities was overcome by literally bleeding them in order to reveal their contents were non-different to yours. "The blood that can be bled is the world-blood. The blood that cannot be bled is mere apparition." In other words, if it can't bleed it can't possess reality and can't be known. This was so literal for Hui-an that he believed trees were reincarnations of wicked people, whose misdeeds had taken them beyond knowledge into a realm of oblivion.

[Anonymouṡ No.19311520]

>>19311276
I haven't read much esoteric Khanist literature but I knew a guy at university who used to declain their poetry when he was drunk. He said it made Homer look effete and over-civilized. I remember one verse went something like this:

Four languages need no translating
Four languages need no learning
The language a baby cries in
The language a man laughs in
The language a horse gallops in
The language an arrow flies in

but he said that translating it into English completely ruined it. (It certainly sounded better in the original.)

[Anonymous No.19311534]

>>19311443
I like you schizoman, but I cannot comprehend you.
>>19311440
Fair enough lmao.
>>19311465
I've always thought trees were sinister. How does Hui-an view animism then? Belief in the "old gods"?

[Anonymous No.19311556]

>>19311443
Actually no I take back my previous reply, how does this work outside of the most vague contexts anon? The whole point of congregationalism is that the believers (who are considered saints) form their own sacraments. How is this compatible with the Roman rite, or any institution which promotes the concept of the apostolic see?

[Anonymous No.19311562]

>>19311177
Yes.

[Anonymous No.19311572]

>>19311562
Elaborate, we talking prince-bishopics? Neo-HRE? Philosopher city-states?

[Anonymous No.19311618]

>>19311534
It's hagiographic but there was supposed to have been a debate between Hui-an and an unnamed shaman, most likely a Tocharian, in which Hui-an made his opponent's ears bleed by reciting a protective dhāranī. So the takeaway was that belief in various "spirits" was inefficacious against the Herukayana teachings on blood-reality. "The bloody man cannot have bloodless gods," one of his many verses.

[Anonymouṡ No.19311630]

>>19311465
>"The blood that can be bled is the world-blood. The blood that cannot be bled is mere apparition."
I vaguely remember a group of post-graduate syncretists at the Sorbonne in the 1970s trying to marry Zhunenian metaphysics to fundamentalist Catholicism (in particular, the doctrine of transubstantiation). If they could have ironed out the contraditions it might have been a religion with appeal to East and West alike. Sadly the whole project devolved into a bunch of factions squabbling over minutiae, as usual.

[Anonymous No.19311641]

>>19311630
Time to reject academia.
>>19311618
The Sage Dialogs are kino.

[Anonymous No.19311660]

>>19311630
iirc there was a big contention over whether the Stations of the Cross were hermeneutical to the Twelve Bloodlettings of Transmigration. Exoterically two stations would need to be cut for that to work. I think it was Jean-Luc Malinkofski who argued Hui-an and Zhunen were themselves the thirteenth and fourteenth so there was no real issue esoterically. But this was unappealing to Michel Rossini's clique, who were trying to go in a more gnostic-materialist direction with "sanguine christology of the cathay rite"

[Anonymous No.19311682]

>>19311641
Yeah there's one where he debates a Confucian about filial piety and the opponent can't answer why one should honor a father who doesn't shed blood. The wordplay in the original language was that the opponent's mother was not a virgin, and his father was as passive as a tree. Trees of course being wicked reincarnations. So he was both mocking the opponent and refuting him at the same time.

[Anonymouṡ No.19311708]

>>19311660
Yeah, IIRC, Rossini was a big Aquinas nut so he was always going to elevate faith over intellectual contemplation for all that he claimed they went hand-in-hand. I was only on the fringes really. I just happened to mention that Dante had the souls of suicides inhabiting trees in Hell, and that they were the only people who wouldn't get their bodies back at the Day of Judgement. The strict Zhunenists loved that, as you can imagine.

[Anonymous No.19311724]

>>19311682
I'm not going to lie I'm a fan of the Abstract Confusion School so I thought that bit was silly

[Anonymous No.19311744]

>>19311708
It's such a difficult syncretism so I'm not surprised. I mean how do you handle something like the Passion, in which the cross, obviously made from trees, is bled upon? Were the souls in the wood redeemed by that blood or not? Malinkofski thought that was impossible even for Christ, and that one would still have to ritually clean anything in contact with trees or freshly sawn lumber. And even worse, preservation of the true cross kept those tree-souls from reincarnating to a better body. Rossini went in the opposite direction, that the fragments of the cross were like the living mummies of Asian monasteries, made holy by petrification.

[Anonymous No.19311746]

>>19311268
Idk, most of the models that predict the dialectical fusion states CERN is expecting to find are just borne out of staring at graphs. It's like trying to look at a bunch of MRIs to understand "The Mind". I've always found the Deleuzo-Guattarian Nighsymmetric model to be more convincing here. The idea that hypogean rhizoplasm forms the basis of trialectical anastasis accounts for all dialectic sublimation without having to take Standard Model's "shortcut" of hand-waving discrepancies away by reference to equipositional quasitors, which imo are no more convincing than dark matter. Realistically all we'll get, though, is CERN publishing discrepancies that just get ignored again, leading Quantum Hegeloplasticity down the same lame irreplicable path as late-stage String Theory. Yawn

[Anonymous No.19311776]

Any of you read Jeff Peternorth's "Cataphract of the Uhlons?" Had a class on it, but it was taught by this cat eye glasses bitch who focused way too much on like, feminist criticism and "reassessments" of it. I want a better foundation in Peternorth, as autists here said i need one to get into Anacreontism without being a pseud. Any recs?

[Anonymous No.19311777]

>>19311075
>that don't exist
I mean that's the fundamental point of Anousion's Early Dialogues?
I find it funny though like all this bitching about philosophy, from Plato, to Aristotle, to Kant, to Heidegger and then Anousion is retroactively like: "lol, there is no philosophy suckers!"
I might be misunderstanding him, after all he is not explicit about anything, they call him the Sophist's Sophist, but didn't he imply something along the lines that the impossibility of actuality means that there is no philosophy? That what we witness is the 'impression in the wax' of wisdom. That Logos is the disintegration of Sophia. And that when you actually make manifest the form of Sophia in Logos then you banish it from actual existence.
All philosophy to Anousion was the act of banishment, or as D.E. Powell translates it "the act of unexisting". It's really interesting how thousands of years later science jumped on the bandwagon with Schrodigger's Cat or the Observer Effect.
I haven't read his later Dialogues, but as I understand it he walked back from that contention somewhat, where he said that unexisting in the act of speaking/writing about ideas implies that something must exist in the first place. Confuses the fuck out of me.
And then you have later commentaries by Ibn Durkha who tries to reframe it in a Islamic lens. That it was in fact okay to do heathen philosophy since it is impossible to actually describe the nature of Allah, therefore there was no philosophy, and therefore it was morally permissible? That the act of unexisting was a commitment of faith for it expunged philosophy?
Anyone recommend any good Ibn Durkha translators? I head that Kanye West sponsored a team to do a brand new translation, but obviously I'm skeptical if it is going to be true to it... but on the other hand, maybe that's the point - maybe the act of translating is unexisting it?

[Anonymouṡ No.19311781]

>>19311744
Yeah, they did go through some absurd intellectual twists and turns trying to reconcile the two systems. I remember one girl wrote a PhD thesis on the NAILS of the cross. She said because the nails pierced the cross, they were instruments of judgement punishing the wood for some sort of quasi-Manicheistic sin or something. It was bizarre.

[Anonymous No.19311808]

>>19311781
Nails are one of 18 instruments Hui-an outlines as proper for use in the 12 bloodlettings, so she could be on to something. But we're still stuck with 14 stations of the cross. Lances are not explicitly disallowed if you consider them polearms. But that becomes a debate on how to translate the Bible. If Longinus were on foot, why would he have a lance? So it could be compatible to a less strict Zhunenian.

[Anonymous No.19311840]

>>19311520
Indeed it's something that you can only truly appreciate via throat singing in the flaming ruins of an urban center. Anything else might as well be a Netflix adaptation. But that's the essence of esoteric Khanism, it's a lived philosophy, like stoicism. You can read about it all you want but you'll never truly understand it until you descend upon your first city with a horde. That's when it's mysteries open up.
>>19311534
I like you too, anon
>>19311556
That's were the hyper-sublimation comes in

Since each Pope has the authority of Saint Peter each Pope is sublimated into the essence of that Saint and since each Priest is in essence the Pope each priest is Saint Peter who holds apostolic authority. So now each congregation creates their own Sacraments but each congregation is guided by apostolic traditions being of the apostles and since they are guided by the holy spirit they create the seven sacraments.

[Anonymous No.19311894]

>>19311808
>f Longinus were on foot, why would he have a lance?
I love overly particular linguistic Biblical study, I live for that shit.
>>19311840
>Since each Pope has the authority of Saint Peter each Pope is sublimated into the essence of that Saint and since each Priest is in essence the Pope each priest is Saint Peter who holds apostolic authority. So now each congregation creates their own Sacraments but each congregation is guided by apostolic traditions being of the apostles and since they are guided by the holy spirit they create the seven sacraments.
So like if every bishop had equal authority?

[Anonymous No.19311923]

>>19311894
Yes but only when speaking ex cathedra and invoking Papal authority. Everything else is just the local authority as Bishop of their respective diocese.

[Anonymous No.19311930]

>>19311923
>Yes but only when speaking ex cathedra and invoking Papal authority. Everything else is just the local authority as Bishop of their respective diocese.
At that point what is the line between Catholicism and Protestantism?

[Anonymous No.19311942]

EXPLAIN RENARE TO ME OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU. EXPLAIN RENARE TO ME AND DON'T FUCKING DUMB IT DOWN. WHAT THE FUCK IS A PHALLIC MOTION? WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY?!? EXPLAIN RENARE TO ME OR I'LL KILL YOu.

[Anonymous No.19311953]

>>19311930
Prots reject the authority of the Pope. Where Hyper-sublimationtarianism sees it as valid and the formost authority of the Church.

[Anonymous No.19311966]

>>19311075
>ctrl+f cervellissimo
>ctrl+f gorkoniker
>ctrl+f najder
FUCK THIS BOARD

[Anonymous No.19311985]

>>19311942
The point of masculine development is to eventually overtake the father, so all history is masculine development. Pretty simple all things considered.

[Anonymouṡ No.19311988]

>>19311942
Calm down, dude. First of all, which Renare do you mean? Phillipe or Louis?
>Phallic motion
OK I assume from this that you mean Phillipe. He was just a neo-pagan who thought all motions could be divided into four categories: phallic, motive, digestive and contemplative. Louis was the more interesting philosopher. I suspect you've got the two mixed up. If you're studying German Idealism, it's Louis you want. He's like Kant's evil twin brother. He postulated that if the "Ding an Sich" exists, but we can't know about it, we ourselves must logically be the "Ding an Sich" for some other world which can't know about *us*. He tried to demonstrate the limits of what could be known about that world and then by symmetry show what we could know about ultimate objective reality.

[Anonymous No.19311994]

>>19311953
But how is saying every parish is the Vatican any different from rejecting the Pope?
>>19311966
(I don't remember enough of their shit to push it bro, you do it)

[Anonymouṡ No.19312012]

>>19311966
/lit/ has never really been into analytic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19312033]

Someone wanna explain how inverse capitalism works to me? I get that everything will be made out of paper mache dollar bills and you purchase them by bartering between stockpiles of raw and refined materials, but I'm not sure how this is supposed to solve a deflation crisis.

[Anonymous No.19312043]

>>19312012
Anon none of those individuals really were around for the continental analytic split, mostly something that came about in the 20th century. Assuming it's a valid distinction even.

[Anonymous No.19312050]

>>19312033
My guy Truche's Blog is largely metaphorical, when he's talking about inverse capitalism he's talking about how economic systems are described on liberal, social contract terms that don't represent the modern state of things.

[Anonymouṡ No.19312056]

>>19312033
Inverse capitalism started as a GedankenExperiment by neoMarxists in Paris to show how both capitalism and its inverse could only lead to eventual collapse, and hence could never be part of a coherent dialectical process. But as so often happens, what one person invents as a joke, another person takes seriously. So a group of AnCaps in the USA tried to run with the idea. No-one cares though; they're AnCaps.

[Anonymous No.19312070]

[Anonymouṡ No.19312074]

>>19312043
Sure, but if you're ever going to meet them, it's going to be under a heading like "Forerunners of Wittgenstein" or something. You're never going to study them independently.

[Anonymous No.19312100]

>>19312070
The SPADEJ have been a bunch of gatekeeper hacks ever since Kroznip rightfully resigned.

Those allegations were bullshit and we all know it.

[Anonymous No.19312108]

pseudo-eusebius is such a fucking hack holy shit

[Anonymous No.19312151]

>>19312033
It's quite simple, if you start under the framework outlined by the Banacht-Ulskoy principle. The effect of capitalism trends towards the accumulation of wealth, and the inversion of said accumulation attenuates the contact between commerce and appropriation of wealth. For one then to apply Ulskoy's axiomatic epistemological interpretation regarding the analysis of autarkic economies incongruous with capitalism results in the transposition of capitalistic sentiments, insofar as they are depredated by state actors, into the negative.

To invert capitalistic sentiments in a closed economy is pedestrian, but in a global market the absence of congenital price controls, resulting from capitalistic speculation and arbitrage, creates a near insuperable challenge. We then apply Banacht's work stemming from studies on African benzodiazepine markets which showed that, contrary to the common economic doctrine, the transportation itself did not necessarily create value, instead leading to substantial deflation. In layman's terms, the application of ordinance targeting not just illegal drug markets but the capitalistic order as a whole results the destruction of inflationary tendencies of state-ran economies (the key difference of course being in the inversion of capitalistic doctrine rather than its ban), while acting as an aegis against the deflationary proclivity of standard capitalism.

[Anonymous No.19312184]

Ok im retarded i know but what did Auguste Bleaux mean when he said Judith Butler was "concavely pregnant" and "phylactating rhizoplasm" and that he could "see it through her shirt"?

[Anonymous No.19312235]

>>19311776
Start with Alain BeDeux's "Systems of Internal Strife: Against Anacreontism" It was written to be a kind of refutation of Anacreontism but he begins the book by documenting how it had evolved up to that point and actually gives a really complete history of it; he drops some names that are worth checking out if you want a really strong foundation but honestly you could just read the first part of that book and you'd be ready to dive into Peternorth's stuff

[Anonymous No.19312252]

>>19311988
>both Renare's explained
Wow, you actually did what I thought was impossible. Ty anon

[Anonymous No.19312281]

>industrialist cucks ITT
Raging Illiteracy is literally the only book Champlain wrote about post-monarchism and yet it utterly BTFOs Edmont.
>>19312184
Auguste was toying with Judith. Haven't you read his Panama memoir? Most of it is just Bleaux telling local women that his homeland was was invaded by a swarm of locusts.

[Anonymous No.19312323]

>>19311966
Oh wow I do remember Gorkoniker. What became of his ostrich?

[Anonymous No.19312453]

>>19312100

[Anonymous No.19312597]

>>19311075
>these plebs haven't read Leofyodvan Turgenstoyevsky
>they insist that their opinions on literature are worth even PERCIEVING, much less worth processing
the absolute state of /lit/

[Anonymous No.19312880]

>>19312597
Recs? Ive read some of the Tangentalist Russians, but ive never bothered with Turgenstoyevsky.

[Anonymous No.19312895]

>>19312880
I'm a fan of Warcrimes and Punished Peace, but I also now that I've read Notes from Fathers to Sons, I have to say the fifth edition, specifically dealing with insatiable lust in the hypermodern age, is quite relevant.

[Anonymous No.19313040]

Does this thread constitute legitimate philosophy? Like Guston said: does not in fact this thread represent an "inverted mirror" essentially reacting against trends which were never established? By showing what "philosophy is not" we are creating a border wherein we can decide what philosophy is.

[Anonymous No.19313044]

This entire thread feels like I'm reading discarded notes from an early draft of pic related

[Anonymous No.19313083]

>>19312895
Ty anon

[Anonymous No.19313094]

>>19311985
Didn't see this earlier - sorry about that anon! But i'm guessing that this fits into Phillipe's model?

[Anonymous No.19313105]

>>19311744
Blood : wood
water—-> blood = wormwood

Blood—>water—->wood (crucifixion+resurrection)

[Anonymous No.19313453]

>>19313094
Aye

[Anonymous No.19313708]

>>19313040
Considering how much of this is taking the piss, probably yeah

[Anonymous No.19313720]

>>19311075
I missed these threads

[Anonymous No.19313744]

>>19311572
We are talking about Futurist Sanfedism (aka Neo-ghibelline neo-neo-platonism, futurosanFEDism) where instead of fighting who has the higher right to rule between the pope or the emperor, we just make the emperor the pope

[Anonymous No.19313776]

Has anyone here read Sigdralnikov or Ivanovski? I’ve been meaning to get into more advanced Russian lit but some of these works can be so word dense and philosophical. Like in Sigdralnikov’s “Lakes of the Great East” when the main character Pyotr Abakov rescues a peasant woman from the steppes and hand feeds her an assortment of shellfish. Was this his way of taking a stance against hyperprogressivism in the government he lived in? I personally thought of it as the peasant representing the Russian people and Pyotr representing the tsar as a caretaker. Though I did hear that later in life he was known for his daring forms of protest. For example, in the late 1880s he would do a hand stand outside the winter palace for six to eight hours every other week in protest to the mass famine that was plaguing Russia at the time. Did he just grow out of his old beliefs, or did I read them wrong entirely?

[Anonymous No.19313820]

I am of the firm and unassailable postition that animals are mere perceptual fabrications autodidactically superimposed upon the manifest driving forces of our world. They are not alive, but more akin to laws of reality. They are not intelligent and have no impetus, they simply are and they simply do as they do because they do, to do otherwise would be causally incoherent.
When we eat of their flesh we are consuming and assimilating the most base energy of nature to keep our heart-furnaces sinter-pumping. Milk comes from the trees.
There are a few knowers that see fully these lumps of primordial chaos for what they are. I do not know who they be or how they see, but I am certain they exist. How else would we get the milk?

Any books on this topic?

[Anonymous No.19313868]

>>19313744
A spiritual marriage between Guelphs and Ghibellines with futurist characteristics? I see.

[Anonymous No.19313870]

>>19313820
You might find Gregor Chert's 'We are the bacteria' interresting. He entertains the idea that we inhabit the innards of some greatly advanced hyper-being and either exist parasitically or perform some function, with our world or possibly even our universe taking the role of organ or organ-component. He draws comparison between this idea and the infinitesimal worlds and universes of bacteria we have inside our own selves.

Perhaps your not-animals take the roll of body-stuff native to the host in a way we aren't. They could be things like anti-bodies or blood cells. Maybe since we feed on them we are alike to viruses and such? It is interresting to contemplate. Perhaps we should fear reprisal from the body.

[Anonymouṡ No.19313893]

>>19313776

I'm no Sigdralnikov expert but I've read some of his stuff. He's tricky because he builds up his own private lexicon of symbols — something he establishes in one work might be used in a succeeding work with no explanation. (A bit like W.B.Yeats with his oh-so-meaningful roses, etc).

Anyway, in Lakes Of The Great East, I think the peasant woman represents the church. Remember she is wearing a potato sack. If you think back to his early surrealist short story One Hundred Bushels Of Potatoes, the significance is obvious. Of course, exactly what the gift of the shellfish means is another matter.