/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20606012]

now that there is Object and Subject we can all agree, yet the Moderns pressupose, without any evidence, that there is a Third Thing, which I guess you could call the Cosmos, which appears to be this sandbox made out of nothing, I guess, that Subject can interact with through the mediation of Object. There seems no reason to believe this save for explaining the permanence of particular 'objects' so say my phone is on top of a table, I leave the room where I am at, I come back, phone is still over the table. So the Modern assumes that to be a good model, that there is this infinite three dimensional room of emptyness where there are particular 'things' floating, and you are a dot inside that room. Of course this is opposite to reality as we can see, as far as it goes, I am Subject and I have Object just planched against me, literally glued to me (there being no separating distance between me and my 'vision' for instance) without any space in between which seems logical since Subject is not Object therefore it can have no extension - distances seem to always be "distances within the Object" although even that is up to discussion since, Object being one thing that continuously changes, it hasn't really got 'distances' per se, but changing shapes - take for instance perspectival changes within what we call our vision, two buildings can look very small (we'd say they are 'far away') and the 'space' between them would be the same as the size of your hand if you have it 'proximal' to yourself. We notice time and time again that the Object in terms of its visual aspect always has the SAME size, all particular 'objects' within it (which really are just shapes and colours) fit within that Object

[Anonymous No.20606030]

>>20606012
The body without organs isn't empty, it's a full egg.

[Anonymous No.20606033]

>>20606012
Oh sweet a schizo thread!

[Anonymous No.20606039]

>>20606012
So there does NOT seem to be this cosmos, rather, there is still Object and Subject. This 'outside realm' that is entirely inaccessible (and we could therefore call an abstraction) also seems to be proposed motivated by the notion that somehow, because I am a Subject and you are a Subject, and we can both communicate, we must therefore be sharing the same 'room'. But that's wholly incorrect. I am Subject, you are not, you are a part of Object, as much a shape, colour, sound, tactile feeling, well, basically, as much a thing that I apprehend and comprehend as any other particular region of Object. I am sure that there exists a different Object, maybe even a different Subject (although that's hard for me to buy) where an image equal to that one I see in the mirror, let's call it 'my image' is present in the Object, as is all the memories, emotions, linguistic content that makes your experience unique. It should be the case that this Object is since I cannot explain how could any Object not be. But from my perspective, there is Subject and there is this particular Object, which holds what you would call "my" memories, sensations, feelings, linguistic content etc. And there is no reason why these two Objects should interact *at the same time* as, so far as I am aware, there is only ONE Object at present as much as there can only be ONE Subject present

[Anonymous No.20606083]

Now, to expand a bit upon the presence of Subject giving actuality i.e making the Object be in 'present time', time clearly needs not come from Subject, this motion. Every single Object (if we were to take it unchanged, 'frozen in eternity') would exist frozen to change as much as an equal Object that has inscribed in it the necessary subsequent Object (we can make an analogy of frozen frames on a video file that will have in their code exactly which frozen frame should come next). That's not a problem with me. The problem is that the Moderns (and many old timers) also seem to think that the Subject is also an agent somehow (we generally call it the Subject's 'will' which of course is illusory as the Subject can't have parts) yet, if that was the case, I should be moving from Object to subsequent Object out of this volition and agency, and could equally 'stop it' were I to so desire. Yet it does not seem to be the case, for as much as I want. This induces me to understand that 'will' is also part of the Object, which would also explain why most of the time this Will seems to be reacting to experiential content i.e Object.

In that case, the Subject can be streamlined immensely, it has no 'will' as we understand it, it just 'is'

[Anonymous No.20606096]

more retarded indo-european grammar attempting to pass off as schizo ramblings while having such low dopamine brains that even ascending past grammatical presupposition is too hard baka

[Anonymous No.20606100]

>>20606096
>t. Mr. I Am Not Subject
then what the fuck are you

[Anonymous No.20606129]

>>20606100
thats a loaded question

[Anonymous No.20606141]

>>20606012
>yet the Moderns pressupose, without any evidence, that there is a Third Thing
There is, infinite evil, purposeless, trashing, perfidious glory waiting for its incarnation as it contemplate the magnificence of the horror it will unleash upon us when it does so.