/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11670156]

>In the final analysis, the nature of things is to be understood in terms of teotl. Teotl is nonpersonal, nonminded, nonagentive, and nonintentional. It is not a deity, person, or subject possessing emotions, cognitions, grand intentions, or Teotl goals. It is not an all-powerful benevolent or malevolent god. It is neither a legislative agent characterized by free will nor an omniscient intellect. Teotl is thoroughly amoral, that is, it is wholly lacking in moral qualities such as good and evil. Like the changing of the seasons, teotl’s constant changing lacks moral properties.

>Teotl is essentially power: continually active, actualized, and actualizing energy-in-motion. It is essentially dynamic: ever-moving, ever-circulating, and ever-becoming. As ever-actualizing power, teotl consists of creating, doing, making, changing, effecting, and destroying. Generating, degenerating, and regenerating are what teotl does and therefore what teotl is. Yet teotl no more chooses to do this than electricity chooses to flow or the seasons choose to change. This is simply teotl’s nature. The power by which teotl generates and regenerates itself and the cosmos is teotl’s essence. Similarly, the power by which teotl and all things exist is also its essence.

>Aztec constitutional monism claims reality and hence the cosmos and all its contents consist of essentially one kind of stuff: always active, actualized, and actualizing energy. Aztec metaphysics thus rejects constitutional dualism, that is, the thesis that reality consists of two essentially distinct and mutually exclusive kinds of stuff: for example, mind versus matter, soul versus body, or spiritual versus physical. Unlike most versions of constitutional monism in world philosophy, Aztec constitutional monism does not maintain that reality consists of one or the other of the foregoing dualities. Unlike materialism, it does not claim reality consists exclusively of matter and does not aim to reduce mind to matter. Unlike idealism, it does not claim reality consists exclusively of mind and Teotl does not aim to reduce matter to mind. Aztec constitutional monism affirms that reality consists of a tertium quid, a third kind of stuff that is neither mind nor matter (as customarily conceived by dualists). This third kind of stuff is electricity-like energy or power. Aztec metaphysics intentionally confounds or cuts across the above dualisms since it regards them as false dualisms. As a consequence reality appears ineliminably and irreducibly ambiguous from the perspective of these nonautochthonous dualisms.

is pic rel basically what life looks like on the plane of immanence? does aztec/maya cosmology depict what a spinozistic universe looks like?

related thought: it would have been nice to put nietzsche and heidegger on a boat (or a zeppelin) and let them sail around the world a little to do some comparative mythology.

[Anonymous No.11670175]

yeah it seems pretty much like Spinoza

[Anonymous No.11670177]

Is that Understanding a World in Motion? Reminds me of the process take in Ames and Hall's Dao De Jing: A Philosophical Translation. I do like the tertium quid idea. Amoral not immoral. Power has some immoral connotations. But then again some mystic characterize the tertium quid as love which is no doubt more misleading.

[Anonymous No.11670215]

>>11670175
>Even farther from home, Benedict de Spinoza’s ontological and constitutional monism and in particular what scholars call his “twoaspect theory” resonate with Aztec metaphysics. Spinoza asserts that mind and matter are not two different kinds of substance but merely two aspects, facets, modes of a single substance, namely, God, who is neither. For Spinoza, writes Genevieve Lloyd, mind and matter “are the same reality, though expressed in different ways.” As Jaegwon Kim understands the view, mind and matter are “simply two ... aspects of a single underlying substance that is neither mental nor material.” The Chinese theory of qi likewise holds that both body (matter) and spirit (mind, psyche) emerge from qi, the single energy-stuff of reality. They are merely two different concentrations of qi – just as steam, liquid, and ice are merely different condensations of water.

>Levine notes that this sort of response is typical among pantheists. Baruch Spinoza, for example, argues that God acts without plans, goals, or intentions. Everything that happens does so without design, forethought, or purpose; it simply emanates from God’s nature. God’s intellect does not precede his will, meaning that he does not think out what he is doing before doing it. According to Lao Tzu, “the myriad things” emanate from a nonpersonified dao that lacks desires, intentions, and designs.

all kinds of neat connections.

>>11670177
>Is that Understanding a World in Motion?
it is indeed, kudos to you anon

when i saw that picture in the op i thought it was just kind of funny, but now it has me thinking. also about how much accelerationist writing in its cybergothic form is a kind of critique of a Nightmare Process Theology. but there are conclusions to be drawn from D&G other than those of land (crazy, i know, given about how much i shitpost about land on this board). fascinating stuff for sure, but when you draw connections between D&G/spinoza and other mythologies it's kind of fascinating too.

[Anonymous No.11670266]

>>11670156
So the most essential stuff or the stuff most worth looking at is doingness itself rather than the stuff which is doing or being or being done. Not sure if that's the soundest model but it does lend itself well to practical philosophy, practical philosophy requiring an emphasis on doing insofar as doingness is surely inseparable from living (but less surely inseparable from non-living).
>>11670175
I see where you're come from, there, but although Spinoza emphasizes doingness (both in the sense of, 1), humans doing understanding/doing alignment with God and doing/doing the increasing of one's own capacity for power or doing, and 2), everything following deterministically from God in various modes, e.g. matter and mind and other modes unknown to us folllowing a domino effect style "line of thought" in God) one could argue his postulation of different parallelistic modes still sinks his model into stuffness more than doingness, that the various modes (while argued to all fall within God are still given some merit as distinct in even being identified as different modes) are different kinds of stuff or seeming distinctions of stuff within the greater stuffness of God. So then although doingness is noted in God's deterministic progression or line of thought within each mode (and parallel across modes), dynamism is not the primary stuff, but God is. If anything, Spinoza's pantheism integrates doingness into stuffness in God; so far as I can tell, Teotl does not do this.

[Anonymous No.11670338]

>>11670215
Schizomystic renaissance friend! Indeed. The parallels are interesting. I notice Teotl is compared to the seasons, does this mean we are to assume a cyclical cosmology? I feel like Land almost goes full Eliadean in Phyl-Undhu, with the ancient tower of a magic world being a space elevator of a previous future civilization... Time is the tiger that devours me but the tiger is me. Lol. Idk. Problem with cyclical time is for some reason everyone concentrates on the past golden age instead of the present. (Also science does not seem to point toward it being true yet)

[Anonymous No.11670369]

>>11670156
Read the Vedas brainlets

[Anonymous No.11670397]

>>11670338
>Problem with cyclical time is for some reason everyone concentrates on the past golden age instead of the present.
it's an almost irresistable temptation. whether you take your cues from marx, nietzsche, hegel...i've been reading this and finding it fascinating. i love love love me some heidegger in a big way. but there's no denying that when you get philosophy tangled up with the critique of technology/modernity (and in the 20C there's a lot of that) you invariably go to those places. cyclical time comes to replace - for good reason? everybody's charmed by nietzsche - linear/progressive time, but with all kinds of unpredictable and usually disastrous results.

>I notice Teotl is compared to the seasons, does this mean we are to assume a cyclical cosmology?
i don't know. maybe. maybe it would be good for us to do that instead of immanentizing the eschaton as we like to do. maybe it's a wiser way to live.

>I feel like Land almost goes full Eliadean in Phyl-Undhu, with the ancient tower of a magic world being a space elevator of a previous future civilization... Time is the tiger that devours me but the tiger is me.
the word 'cybergothic' comes to mind. it really seems appropriate for what happens in acceleration, the same kind of terror/fascination with capitalism that our 19C forebears had with those moors and subterranea and vampires. bound up in fatal romances (and taking laudanum, and writing poetry...)

it seems to me that Old Nick is a solid rationalist who basically says, kant and marx are fundamentally saying the same thing. he ditches hegel for deleuze. Young Nick was more interesting. but it was kind of nick to not skimp on the portions and give us two of himself to lose our minds thinking about.

>>11670369
the vedas are long. how about a relevant passage?

[Anonymous No.11670475]

>>11670369
>Read the Vedas brainlets
Theres nothing said in the Vedas that can not be said by a random babies buttocks suffering an attack of diarrhea , and yes, I have not read a single word of them.

But in all seriousness, are they the upanishads? a few years ago a friend showed me tibetan book of dead in a book store, are these related?

[Anonymous No.11670516]

>>11670475
Upanishads are built on the vedas, and Buddhism is built on Upanishads, and Tibetan Buddhism is built from Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.11671893]

>The Aztecs accordingly endeavored to weave a nepantla-balanced way of life. They lived and died within a woven way of life and within a woven cosmos. They were born on woven mats, married on woven mats, fabricated cloth on woven mats, divined the tonalpohualli on woven mats, and ruled from woven mats. They slept in woven mats, had sexual relations on woven mats, and commonly died on woven mats. They lived in woven houses and conducted important religious rituals on woven mats in temples with woven roofs.They grew agricultural foodstuffs in woven fields (chinampas). They inserted their bloody autosacrificial thorns and spines in woven grass balls. They wove words together to form ritual speech and song-poems; they wove musical notes together to form ritual music. Equally if not more significantly, they defined themselves in terms of weaving and woven cloth. They dressed themselves, teixiptla, statues, sacred bundles, and the dead in woven cloth. They distinguished themselves from outsiders and from one another ethically, socially, politically, and religiously in terms of woven fabric. In short, Aztec tlamatinime conceived genuine, authentic, and well- rooted human existence in terms of nepantla-balanced and nepantla-middled processes, activities, and time-places. Well-balanced living enjoyed such earthly benefits as greater stability, longevity, health, happiness, and pleasure.

>Aztec tlamatinime contrasted this with the poorly rooted and inauthentically human existence of wayward peoples such as the Chichimecs, whom they likened to deer and rabbits and regarded as unstable, skittish, erratic, disordered, uncentered, self-indulgent, and lacking in moderation and self-discipline. Such people followed the wild, crooked, and wandering path of vagabondage – as opposed to the straight, centered, and middled path of well-balancedness. They lived in the periphery – that is, in the plains, the forests, the crags – not the center, the middle, and the navel. They wore raw hides and skins, or like the Huastecs, wore no breechcloths at all. Imbalanced living suffered such earthly costs as greater instability, expiry, ill health, hunger, sorrow, and pain.

>In closing, nepantla organizes the Aztecs’ understanding of their lifeway. Wise living embraces, implements, and masters nepantla motion-change. It seeks neither to avoid, minimize, nor escape nepantla. Nepantla is the norm, not the exception. Human existence takes place in the crossroads. Wisdom consists of embracing and mastering the ineliminable ambiguity of the crossroads and hence the ineliminable ambiguity of life – not trying to deny, minimize, or escape it.

don't be a chichimec

[Anonymous No.11672052]

>>11670156
Very cool. What books could I look into to learn more about this subject?

[NeoplatonismIstKrieg No.11672070]

>>11672052
See:
>is that understanding a world in motion?
>>yes

[Anonymous No.11672072]

i dont know whats going on in this thread, but it's cool

[Anonymous No.11672092]

>>11670397
>the vedas are long. how about a relevant passage?
brainlet: the vedas can only be understood by the way of the vedas: he who knows AS SUCH
hindu metaphorical goatfuckers ha already discovered godeleian self refentiality a bunch of centuries before christ: really makes one ponder doesn't it

[Anonymous No.11672140]

>>11670397
>the vedas are long. how about a relevant passage?

Not that guy and I would never say 'anyone who reads this instead of the Vedas is a brainlet' etc but this is a relevant passage:

>All this is He-what has been and what shall be. He is the Lord of immortality. Though He has become all this, in reality He is not all this. For truly, He is beyond the world. The whole series of universes-past, present, and future-express His glory and power; but He transcends His own glory. All beings of the universe form, as it were, only a portion of His being; the greater part is invisible and unchangeable. He who is beyond all predicates appears as the relative universe; He appears as all sentient and insentient beings.

Rig-Veda x.90.1-5

[Anonymous No.11672502]

I keep imagining how was Aztec and Mayan literature.

[Anonymous No.11672673]

>>11672052
the greentext comes from pic rel. there's another book on libgen about mayan philosophy also but i haven't gotten through that one yet.

>>11672092
>>11672140
thank you anons. i've been meaning to read guenon's book on hindu doctrine, now seems like a good time. i guess it seems that one difference between the aztecs and the hindus would be that the cosmos as teotl is not personified:

>Teotl is nonpersonal, nonminded, nonagentive, and nonintentional. It is not a deity, person, or subject possessing emotions, cognitions, grand intentions, or goals. It is not an all-powerful benevolent or malevolent god. It is neither a legislative agent characterized by free will nor an omniscient intellect. Teotl is thoroughly amoral, that is, it is wholly lacking in moral qualities such as good and evil. Like the changing of the seasons, teotl’s constant changing lacks moral properties.

that's a pretty sound definition of god-as-nature. idk, maybe it speaks to the taoist in me.

>>11672502
>I keep imagining how was Aztec and Mayan literature.

there's the popul vuh:

>The Popol Vuh is a creation narrative written by the K'iche' people before the Spanish conquest of Guatemala, originally preserved through oral tradition until approximately 1550 when it was written down. The survival of the Popol Vuh is credited to the 18th century Dominican friar Francisco Ximénez who made a copy of the original text in Spanish. The name "Popol Vuh" translates as "Book of the Community", "Book of Counsel", or more literally as "Book of the People". The Popol Vuh includes the Mayan creation myth, beginning with the exploits of the Hero Twins Hunahpú and Xbalanqué.

[Anonymous No.11672732]

NEO TENOCHTITLAN ARRIVING FROM THE FUTURE

[Anonymous No.11672756]

>>11672732
fuck yes. aztechnology was always a thing.

and where else does the S in shadowrun come from, anyways?

[Anonymous No.11672777]

interestingly I just started Eric Perl's Theophany and he seems to collapse the distinction between the One as transcendent cause and the immanent world of appearances by saying that the One isn't really some transcendent, undifferentiated realm that swallows all differentiation, but the principle of determination, and thus of intelligibility, itself. basically, the One doesn't "cause" the universe because it's nothing but a groundless and infinite productive power, the cause is the effect and the effect is the cause. really surprised how Spinozist this is sounding

[Anonymous No.11672785]

>>11672732
speaking of which, our boy has an interview out.

https://vastabrupt.com/2018/08/15/ideology-intelligence-and-capital-nick-land/

[Anonymous No.11672823]

pretty similar to heraclitus tbqh

[Anonymous No.11672828]

>>11672673
That Guenon book is quite good

>Teotl is nonpersonal, nonminded, nonagentive, and nonintentional. It is not a deity, person, or subject possessing emotions, cognitions, grand intentions, or goals. It is not an all-powerful benevolent or malevolent god. It is neither a legislative agent characterized by free will nor an omniscient intellect. Teotl is thoroughly amoral, that is, it is wholly lacking in moral qualities such as good and evil. Like the changing of the seasons, teotl’s constant changing lacks moral properties.

This is actually mostly how Advaita Vedanta regards the Supreme Brahman (and not the lesser). More proof of the universality of the concept that Aztecs could get it on their own. Regarding Brahman as a diety (in the western sense of the term) is actually completely inaccurate and Hindus thinkers regard it as being non-personal, without cognition, not an agent that acts, without intention, it lacks moral qualities insofar as these don't exist as anything other than illusions within it, it is not intellect insofar as having thoughts but It is aware of itself (which is everything) like an omnipresent and omniscient ouroboros. There is a hierarchy of being descending from the Supreme Brahman all the way down through the various degrees of manifestations from all the gods, angels, humans, animals etc all the way down to matter and empty space (which is not actually empty space but still manifestation within Brahman). Anything characterizing Brahman as being an agent that acts, cares about results or experiences the consequences of action only refers to one of it's immediate and early determinants in the hierarchy of being beginning with things like Ishvara, Buddhi, Virat and the gods of the trimurti like Krisha or Shiva.

The only difference would seem to be motion. Brahman is considered as being motionless in an absolute sense but there is conditional (illusionary) motion within it (e.g. Parmenides). This is where the symbolism of the things like swastika and spiral come in, implying a unchanging and unmoving center at the heart of all phenomena and movement). It's not clear from the quote you posted whether the Aztecs considered motion within it as ultimately illusionary or not but aside from that point it's mostly the same.

[Anonymous No.11672876]

>>11672828
Not him, but after having read through the book he's citing it seems to me that the Aztecs were well aware of the fact that the monism they were positing meant that the distinctions between things was ultimately meaningless not only because everything is Teotl but because the lines between things are imaginary (the light of my lamp is affecting me, where is the line between me and the lamp drawn? well duh there isn't one). However, they take the opposite stance of what you're positing: rather than viewing the motion an illusion hiding an inherent being, but rather an inherent being as an illusion hiding the motion. Teotl isn't an entity, it's an impersonal verb like the latin "pluo", or the English "it is raining". Teotl isn't a thing, or a substance at all, it's a process, a verb and not a noun. There are no nouns at all, in fact, there's only Teotl unfolding in manners described by adverbs (patterns of Teotl occurring in and interacting with itself in specific ways)

So instead of
>The car drives
we should be saying
>It Teotled carly drivingly
because the only thing that's real is Teotl unfolding according to specific patterns.

[Anonymous No.11672916]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST HOW MANY FUCKING REFORMULATIONS DO YOU NEED OF THE WILL, THE DIONYSIAN, THE WILL TO POWER, THE HERACLITEAN, THE PARMENIDEAN, BEING QUA BEING, TO APEIRON, THE ABSOLUTE

WE GET IT, WE FUCKING GET IT, IT DISSOLVES DUALISMS, IT DISSOLVES BOUNDARIES, WE GET IT, CONCEPTS ARE FINITE BUBBLES IN AN INFINITE MEDIUM AND THE MEDIUM HAS PRIORITY, WE FUCKING GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S AN INTERESTING METAPHOR, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITH MORE ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHIES LIKE THE DAO AND THE SACRED FIRE OF PING PANG PONGO, THEY'RE LITERALLY MINING FUCKING AZTEC PHILOSOPHY NOW TO RECAPITULATE WHAT NIETZSCHE WAS ALREADY JUST CRIBBING FROM HEINE SCHOPENHAUER AND GOETHE?!?!?! WHY?????????? WHY CAN'T THESE FUCKING WORTHLESS HACKS EVER DO SOMETHING INTERESTING FOR A CHANGE?

IS THIS REALLY WHAT YOUR WHOLE SAD PISS LIFE IS SPENT ON? BECOMING A FUCKING SHITDICK ANTHROPOLOGIST OF MESOAMERICA JUST SO YOU CAN PROVE THAT THE TEN THOUSAND DERIVATIVE REFORMULATIONS OF HEIDEGGER'S CLEANED-UP REFORMULATION OF NIETZSCHE'S INVERTED REFORMULATION OF SCHOPENHAUER'S AESTHETICIZED REFORMULATION OF A VITALISTIC OR TATKRAFTIG NOUMENON IS [[[[ALSO ADUMBRATED OR CONFIRMED BY YET ANOTHER OOGA BOOGA SPIRIT JUNGLE RELIGION]]]]????????????? HOW DOES THE STALE AIR EMANATING FROM THIS CLICHE SINCE SOMEONE FIRST THOUGHT OF SYSTEMATICALLY ORIENTALIZING HEIDEGGER IN THE FUCKING 1940S NOT GET DETECTED BY THE NOSTRILS OF THESE FUCKING ACADEMICS

ALL OF THIS WORK, ALL THOSE YEARS SPENT PORING OVER ANOTHER CULTURE, JUST SO THAT YOU CAN CONFIRM YOUR LAZY PRECONCEPTIONS OF QUIETIST POST-PLATONIST FUCKING "LOOK MOM, IT'S STILL 1968! I BOUGHT A TURTLENECK JUST LIKE FOUCAULT!" NEOLIBERAL BOHEMIAN IDEOLOGY ANYWAY? WHY NOT JUST SKIP ALL THAT GO STRAIGHT TO THE BATHHOUSE??

HOW DO THEY NOT REALIZE THAT THIS IS THE WORST "ORIENTALISM" OF ALL? IT'S NOT THE ETHICAL CONSEQUENCES OF ORIENTALISM THAT ARE DISTURBING, IT'S THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL BIAS!!! THE PREMISE IS THAT THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL BIAS ALWAYS GENERATES NEGATIVE ETHICAL CONSEQUENCES! THE PROBLEM WITH ORIENTALISM WASN'T THAT IT WAS PLATONIST, SO IT'S FINE FOR YOU TO DO IT BECAUSE YOU'RE NEOPLATONIST. THE PROBLEM WAS THAT YOU'RE DOING IT AT ALL. WHY NOT TRY TO EXPERIENCE ACTUAL ALTERITY? DOESNT IT BOTHER YOU THAT YOU'RE AGREEING WITH THE TAOIST EAST ASIAN STUDIES GUY DESPITE WORKING ON THE AZTECS LITERALLY SEVERAL "WORLDS" AWAY?

WHY AM I CONSTANTLY ASSAULTED BY BAD PHILOSOPHIES. WHY DOES EVERYBODY THINK THEY'RE A FUCKING GENIUS FOR LASHING LEVINAS TO DELEUZE AND GOING "OMG WITH THIS I CAN ***REALLY*** OVERCOME CARTESIANISM." WOW! YOU DID IT! LIKE ALL YOUR OTHER EUNUCH COLLEAGUES WHO PLAYED THE SAME MAD LIBS GAME TOO!! NOW YOU'RE A FUCKING COOL GUY!

[Anonymous No.11672929]

>>11672916
All these Europeans themselves were late-comers to the game they played who weren't as good as the originals.

[Anonymous No.11672951]

>>11672777
imho i think we're all substance monists now, basically. reluctantly or otherwise. a fucking terrifying idea, but it makes sense. everything runs on capital's clock, but capital still needs us. like the ultimate shotgun wedding.

who knows, maybe this is necessary for the next shift in human evolution. some mimetic enlightenment centuries hence. would be nice to think so, anyways.

>>11672828
>More proof of the universality of the concept that Aztecs could get it on their own.
it's just too fucking cool, isn't it? all the stuff we are going through now - the postmodern rage virus - is just so much proof of what zizek always said, that postmodernity is still only another turn of the screw for universalism. the *actual* postmodernity is something other than critique. way more. it's much more using our based modern science (and even some of our wickedly precision-engineered philosophical concepts) to figure out What Did The Gods Mean By This.

sometimes you hate feeling a glimmer of hope at the eleventh hour tho. right when you are all ready to watch it all burn because people are just so fucking harebrained.
>t. also harebrained

>t's not clear from the quote you posted whether the Aztecs considered motion within it as ultimately illusionary or not but aside from that point it's mostly the same.

what's neat about this are the different qualities of motion themselves:

>Olin is curving, swaying, oscillating, pulsating, and centering motion-change. It is exemplified by bouncing balls, pulsating hearts, respiring chests, earthquakes, labor contractions, and the daily movement of the Fifth Sun.

>Malinalli is twisting, spinning, gyrating, coiling, whirling, and spiraling motion-change. It is exem- plified by spinning fiber into thread, cooking and digesting food, blowing life into things, drilling fire, burning incense, and ritual music, speech, and song (in xochitl in cuicatl).

> Nepantla is middling, intermixing, and mutu- ally reciprocating motion-change. It binds together inamic pairs in the simultaneously creative-and-destructive agonistic tension of transformation. Nepantla motion-change is exemplified by mixing and shaking things together, weaving (interlacing), and sexual commingling.

kind of an outside-the-box way of thinking about things. a phenomenology of motion? who knew? kind of makes you wish you had the flotation tank/DMT combo to brood on this with.

>>11672876
>It Teotled carly drivingly
this is fucked-up and completely fun to think about.

>>11672916
based

>JESUS FUCKING CHRIST HOW MANY FUCKING REFORMULATIONS DO YOU NEED
lots! i like those.

>IS THIS REALLY WHAT YOUR WHOLE SAD PISS LIFE IS SPENT ON?
yes

[Anonymous No.11672969]

>>11672916
lol. based.

who should we read instead? srs

[Anonymous No.11672992]

>>11672876
>>It Teotled carly drivingly
hope it had insurance

[Anonymous No.11673008]

>>11672876
So I'm assuming that under this implication the stuff like sacrificing captives to ensure the rain and continuance of the sun wasn't as though it was intended to satiate some demon or god in the sky but was rather more like trying to harness the currents of unfolding energy like Feng shui or Tai Chi.

[Anonymous No.11673064]

>>11672916
>Delicious essentialism-poster anal enturbulation

OH NO. The battle only you were fighting has finally not been met lol

[Anonymous No.11673075]

>>11671893
What book are you citing?

[Anonymous No.11673091]

>>11671893
sounds like Dharma

[Anonymous No.11673252]

>>11673075
still the same one: >>11672673

i don't know why, but the negative depiction of the chichimecs is kind of motivating. walking the Middle Path is always kind of boring just by itself, even when it's presented with absolutely good reason, as in this or in confucius. but it's not cool to be a chichimec. there's nothing Noble Savage about that. it's just...shitty and foolish to behave that way. but you need to have *someone* to turn up your nose to.

>t. guy who follows the wild, crooked, and wandering path of vagabondage
>and getting tired of it

>>11673091
yeah, i think you're right about that.

doing the right thing doesn't have to be all about conformity. maybe this is something peterson will talk about at some point. some people just have a kind of weird and perverse anti-authoritarian grain in them that resists letting anyone tell them what to do. even if it's the right thing. you wind up saying No just because you can, not because it's right. it's just selfishness, or ignorance, or fear. you think, maybe, that you won't do something because of how boring and middlebrow it is. and maybe that's part of it. but really, it's just *you.*

everyone's exo-determined in a sense. wouldn't be Planet Meme otherwise.

>Aztec metaphysicians had a keen appreciation of the fact that things fall apart, that things become unraveled, imbalanced, and disordered, and that everything – including the Fifth Sun and Fifth Era – tends toward tlazolli (disorder, entropy). Thus we see another expression of the Tezcatlipoca factor, since tlazolli is associated with Tezcatlipoca. Sahagún includes dust (teuhtli) and filth (tlazolli) among Tezcatlipoca’s attributes. “When he used to go about on the earth, he would bring to life dust and filth.” Tlazolli threatens the order, balance, centeredness, and hence very existence of individuals, homes, temples, communities, and the Fifth Era. Aztec philosophers consequently believed the Fifth Era requires tireless and uninterrupted maintaining, attending to, arranging, and purifying. Humans must prevent the forces of tlazolli from accumulating, and sweeping is one of the principal ways of doing so. Brooms stand out as one of the principal weapons in humans’ struggle against this threat. When carefully executed, sweeping enables humans to defuse (if only temporarily) the destructive forces of tlazolli and transform them into something creative.

swords to ploughshares, swords to brooms. imagine if peterson read this.

[Anonymous No.11673397]

>>11672916
r u the fella from the thread the other day (or week, or month, or whatever) that made that post about weeding out the deleuzites and whiteheads and setting the peirceans against the wall and whatnot?

[Anonymous No.11673400]

>>11673252
>imagine if peterson read this.
or, you know
don't

[Anonymous No.11673460]

>>11670156
All of this reminds me of the often overlooked but thoroughly based philosophy of Diogenes of Apollonia (not to be confused with the Cynic or the biographer Laertius)
The IEP article on him is pretty good, you should check it out if you’re unfamiliar

[Anonymous No.11673614]

>>11672916
>fretting over "orientalism"
cringe, but mostly is A+

[Anonymous No.11674386]

>>11673008
Precisely. When looking at the Aztec religion, one needs to look at the Lay Religion and the Priestly Religion. The Lay Religion saw the world as being very similar to Greek Paganism (Not Roman or Greco-Roman, but Ancient Greek): The world is run fickle, capricious, occasionally cruel gods that play favorites and hand out unreasonably retributive punishments for acts that, in many cases, aren't actually harmful to people who often were not acting with any kind of malice or immorality.

The Priestly Religion, however, saw that because of the constitutional monism of the world, there were no gods. There were no priests, either, or worshipers, or temples, or anything: There is just Teotl. The gods themselves were really just clusters of processes. The god of war is not just a glowy dude who goes around fighting: He literally is war as a concept. The god of love is not just a glowy lady that goes around playing matchmaker: He literally is love as a concept. The god of rot and decay is not just an ugly guy who goes around wallowing in shit: He literally is rot and decay.

The question of the sentience of these processes comes up. If the gods are just clusters of processes, are they really gods at all? The answer is: since people are clusters of processes, are they people at all? The answer to both is yes. Rather than sentience being some property of abstractable reason as it is in the West, under this process philosophy/theology the gods just have a different kind of intelligence than humans. So does your chair, however. These intelligences can be incredible (gods), quite good (human), poor (cows), to basically non-existent (your chair) because intelligence is not the ability to "reason" as it is in the West but is instead a property of processes' capacity to interact with other processes because of processes, via the observation of patterns and the repetition of patterns when engaging in processes.

All processes, then, are really just zooming in on an arbitrary closeup of Teotl. A single leaf is a process; so is the branch, and the tree, and the grove, and the forest, and the ecosystem, and the world, and the solar system, and the galaxy, and the galactic cluster, and the universe, and all of reality. We, for our human purposes, just zoom in on specific parts of it.

[Anonymous No.11674440]

>>11674386
Because everything is really just "it Teotling" in specific patterns, two things arise:

>inamichuan (plural), inamic (singular)
These are opposites that act like sparring partners. Male-female, darkness-light, hot-cold, life-death, being-nonbeing, etc. These are first order (so balance-imbalance is NOT one of them) patterns of processing that seek to dominate and struggle with each other but NOT overtake each other. There is no balance between them, male is always seeking to dominate female and vice versa, but male WANTS to be dominated by female, it doesn't want to KILL female. A chess player wants to beat their opponent, or be beaten by a worthy opponent, to better themselves; the playing of the game is more important than winning (otherwise you'd just shoot your opponent). Walking is an example of this: A continuous process of Left overtaking Right, Right overtaking Left; just as Left has overtaken Right, it gives way to Right and lets Right overtake it. This continuous struggle is where balance comes from: over a longterm time scale this constant back and forth struggle results in balance. Where badness comes in (in ethics, immorality; in aesthetics, ugliness) is when one inamic completely overtakes the other and snuffs it out. Black cannot exist without White at a fundamental level (what is black if you have no white to compare it to). These are not fundamental constants or forces; there's an infinite number of them, they're purely made by human recognition of patterns. These patterns are not "Platonic Forms", they're purely just humans noticing specific patterns; they're a figment of our mind trying to understand the universe. If humans were deaf, there'd be less of them. If humans could echolocate, there'd be more of them. This is the "Unity of Opposites" that Heraclitus talks about.

>olin, malinalli, nepantla
Translation-rotation-motion-change, spinning-twisting-motion-change, and weaving-mixing-motion-change. These are three fundamental patterns by which Teotl unfolds. These are second-order patterns based on HOW the struggle fo the inamichuan play out. HOW "it is teotling" occurs is described at this level, with more "accurate" descriptions really just condensing a vast number of combinations of these things together ("it is Teotling carly").

[Anonymous No.11674480]

>>11674440
THIS is where we get to the sun and human sacrifice. The universe is fundamentally self-ordering, but it is also SELF-DISORDERING. It is up to humans (for our purely human purposes) to ORDER the universe. The universe will keep on trucking; Teotling has always existed and is all that will exist. There is no beginning, no end, just Teotling. BUT, the sun (the Aztecs understood "our world" in terms of numbered suns) is not immortal; the universe is actually on its fifth sun according to the Aztecs. There were maybe more suns before that, maybe not. Some gods can survive the death and birth of a sun, some can't. Humans certainly cannot except by going to one of the many other realms, but those are quite hostile to human life. So, it's up to the clusters of processes we call "humans" to engage in the regulation of their environment to keep the processes they want to keep going going. Namely, the rising of the sun.

To do this, Aztec Tlamatinime (philosophers and wise-men) found the best way to do this would be to transfer olin energy to the sun in order to feed it. The heart is a source of olin energy (cyclic motion), so the Aztecs engaged in mass heart-sacrifice to feed the sun. A bunch of other things did this, like the sacrifice of pregnant women (I believe this had something to do with rain and water). This is why the Aztecs setup their empire in such a manner as to harvest the barbarians around them: They were doing exactly that, harvesting them. This works in the long term because Teotling is all there is, so in theory the sun will give back enough olin to keep making hearts to give to the sun. It's a zero sum, but a slippery one. The world is slippery to the Aztecs, you need to stay on the middle of the mountain or you tumble down.

Ultimately, harvesting human hearts to give to the sun is no different from wiping your ass after you shit, or sweeping your porch: It is a means of ordering your environment by feeding some processes and starving others. The Aztecs glorified gods of feces, decay, rot, and death because it is from these things that life comes. Shit is manure, manure grows crops, crops feed you, is manure really that bad? As long as you feed the processes you want and starve the ones you don't (food vs bacterial infection), no, it's not.

[Anonymous No.11674548]

this thread has me totally lost.
What books should i read in order to be able to understand the connections and references made here? Spinoza?
Aztec/Mayan literature apparently?
Guenon?
Indian mythology?

[Anonymous No.11674563]

rare good thread. the height of what something like 4chan promises. saving this

[Anonymous No.11674566]

>>11674548
This book will sum it up. It's honestly one of the best introductions to process philosophy that I've ever seen. You can skim the stuff about olin/malinalli/nepantla if you're more interested in process philosophy from a philosophical point of view instead of from an anthropological view, but I recommend reading at the olin chapter in its entirety.

Aztec secondary sources are useful if you're interested, again, in Aztec culture and religion as opposed to the broader process philosophy.

I actually found this book because of a cryptic post in a thread that had nothing to do with the thread proper (I think it was just bitching about DFW or some meme shit)
>It's up on libgen, you know...

[Anonymous No.11674585]

>>11670156
This cheap pantheism is so stupid. What new concept has it introduced? It’s idiotic, neither fish nor fowl, too impersonal and secular to have any religious meaning, to mystical and wishywashy to have any scientific interest.

>dude God is like nature lmao... he’s just like the force of nature lol. All of nature is god dude. Like it’s not even conscious or good or evil. It’s just god lmao. It’s like a big impersonal energy.

What new concept is introduced? What do I give a fuck if all of nature is “teotl” and this stupid “teotl” is just the impersonal energy of nature? All you’ve done is said a tautology.

>>11672072
Nothing’s going on, just a bunch of obfuscation of the one of the most basic and uninteresting “mystical” or philosophical concepts. All is one brother!

>>11672916
Thank you, I didn’t even read this before making my post. I completely agree and am glad there’s some people here not taken in by such a stale idea —- which, moreover, I doubt the Aztecs believed. The passage drips with insincere and retroactive philosophizing applied to an ancient culture which probably did not care about such an idea at all.

Where’s the proof that Aztecs had this concept? Where’d the so-called “scholar” pull this bullshit out of? His ass, it appears. Where’s the critical thinking on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.11674601]

>>11674585
>doesn't read the thread
>acts like a retard anyways
The citations have been posted. Hell, Maffie himself cites his sources readily. It's a pain in the ass skipping through some twenty pages of citations at the end of each chapter on an e-reader.

Thanks for the bump.

[Anonymous No.11674619]

>>11671893
an anti anti-civilization critique made by precolumbians. but unfortunately not a very interesting one

[Anonymous No.11674627]

>tfw you stop being and start becoming

[Anonymous No.11674641]

>>11674601
I mean where’d this stupid WRITER himself get the idea? Did he live during the Aztec times? Have Aztec philosophical writing been handed down to us? Just because a book has footnotes doesn’t mean it’s good scholarship.

[Anonymous No.11674657]

>>11674548
The discussion that has taken place within this thread has mostly revolved around Aztec thought and how it along with most of the major non-western types of thought/metaphysics posits that there is an underlying unity/unicity (or monism) to everything that is "without duality" (there is only That, and nothing else, all is within It and there is only one It). In western thought this was explored most extensively and explicitly by the Neoplatonists, although there were others like Spinoza, Leibnitz, Hegel, Eckhart, Bohme, Philo etc who tried formulating their own understanding of it. There is no standard order for understanding this stuff, the more you encounter and study various types of it the better you understand it and notice when it appears in other kinds of thought. The 'Aztec Philosophy' book would be where to learn about it in Aztec thought. From what I understand some of the plains Indians in what is now the United States also had these ideas, which Schuon details in his book 'The Feathered Sun'. Reading Guenon helps you better understand the eastern and particulary Hindu texts that discuss this although he isn't necessary if you don't plan on reading anything Hindu. In Hinduism, Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shavism explore this in depth and have a wealth of great texts. The Daoist text Zhuangzi also features this as does many of the works of the great Sufis like Ibn Arabi, Sanai, Attar and Rumi. Some Mahayana Buddhist sutras contain various forms of this too. If you want to understand these things better you can begin reading anything in the above list which interests you.

[Anonymous No.11674696]

>>11674386
jesus they had it all figured out. and then the spanish gave them a book and told them the sky man wanted them to cut off part of their dicks

[Anonymous No.11674717]

>>11674641
>Have Aztec philosophical writing been handed down to us?
Yes, several actually. Not only are there a number of texts in Classical Nahuatl glyphs that have survived (about 500 total texts, ranging from short multi-page documents to full on philosophical and historical treatises), but many of them are very philosophical in nature. The Codex Borgia, the Codex Mendoza, and the Codex Borbonicus are three examples of such philosophical texts in Classical Nahuatl that survive to us. A number of Catholic missionaries and monks (Friars Olmos, Motolinia, Sahagun, Duran and Mendieta) also spent a lot of time trying to understand the Aztec philosophical system and mindset for both missionary and academic purposes. Sahagun was not only an avid reader of Aztec philosophical texts but actually interviewed a large number of Aztecs themselves and Aztec Tlamatinime. Additionally, after the Spanish conquest, a number of Mestizo and Nahuatl nobility and scholars recorded the traditions and information that had been taught to them.

The descendants of this philosophy are still present amongst the Meso-American people today, for what it's worth. The Nahuatl people, and several other related tribes, still adhere to process philosophy, they just say that Teotl is the way Europeans and Jews understood Teotl. They also practice shamanism, and believe in the three energies (olin, malinalli, nepantla), and practice a number of Pagan ceremonies that have only been loosely Christianized.

A final source of this is information from other Meso-American groups (Namely the Maya with the Popol Vuh; the Maya had the same process philosophy and constitutional monism as the Aztec, and similar to Heraclitus, lament humanities inability to truly see the monism of the universe except with the mind). In fact, this constitutional monism and process philosophy actually extends to ALL Paleo-Siberian people, going as far north as the tribes inhabiting Canada and the North East United States.

[Anonymous No.11674736]

i dont really understand whats so interesting here. Monism is basically as natural as theism itself. Every ancient culture had some conception of "everything is connected". It isnt surprising that the New World did as well

[Anonymous No.11674738]

currently starting this, anyone read it?

[Anonymous No.11674744]

>>11674736
Your superficiality betrays itself

[Anonymous No.11674750]

>>11674738
Bohm is top tier
Less accessible than Maffie tho
Bring your contemplation toque

[Anonymous No.11674771]

>>11674744
maybe youre just taking the idea of someone not being as surprised as you that precolumbians had the same philosophical starting points as everyone else personally

sure they branched off some and the variations are curious, but there isn't really anything new or important that could be gained from any of this. the indians did it first and better

[Anonymous No.11674786]

>>11674771
That's an opinion. A superficial one, whose source is your colon

[Anonymous No.11674794]

>>11672916
Lol based.
People like yerking off Eastern and primitive formulations because if they say they read Nietzsche or Heidegger they are perceived as edgy and out of touch. Whereas if you can go to most liberal arts chicks and say
>Did you know that the Mayans and the ancient Hindus (yeah I'm aware of the Vedas) were saying the same DEEP truths about life, but yeah the different metaphors like, express the DEEP truths from different perspectives, of like...the infinite...maaan. I've got Joseph Campbell's the power of myth on VHS, wanna watch that and chill?
Maybe she'll consider sucking your dick.

[Anonymous No.11674821]

>>11674786
Not really. The Indians were writing this stuff down before Tenochtitlan even existed. Seems like, again you're taking someone not sharing your yuppie obsession with precolumbian thought personally.

[Anonymous No.11674824]

>>11674794
We are entering levels of pseud here that shouldn't be possible.

How does one read Western Philosophy and then still go around in the most utterly superficial, projecting mode of consciousness possible?

[Anonymous No.11674830]

>>11674794
modern philosophers just jerk off around retarded word soups and cryptic unreadable diagrams
i rather take the ancient mystics that knew you cant transmit this knowledge with words no matter how many you make up in your 800 pages tomes of nothingness.

[Anonymous No.11674838]

>>11674821
No, they weren't. That's the point you keep missing.

>hurr durr all is one XD

That's the single most braindead, superficial observation you could make. Seriously, read through this thread again and actually think about the implications of process philosophy. In particular, look at the "Verbs, not nouns" idea and think about how it contrasts to the works of Plato.

Keep in mind that none of this is found in India.

[Anonymous No.11674841]

>>11674771
>Interest in a subject must be the result of being surprised

[Anonymous No.11674844]

>>11674821
The extremity of this superficiality is blowing me away.
You think you can bluff your way through this but you can't because you haven't read the materials.
The upanishadic/vedic concept is so utterly different from Nahua concept that it's very obvious you don't have the basic tools to start.

You read "monism" and mentally shat yourself

[Anonymous No.11674848]

>>11674838
i think people are missing that TEOTL is not a thing, but a process, which is understandable because modern western society thinks 100% in terms of stuff first

[Anonymous No.11674857]

>>11674794
>being triggered by other people enjoying posting about different types of non-western thought
>projecting this hard

What use is western philosophy if it's devotees react like enraged children when they see people seriously discussing other types of thought?

[Anonymous No.11674863]

>>11674857
western philisophy is superior bro, look all these words they created to explain something, its literally better than some no words peasants

[Anonymous No.11674872]

>>11674848
Essentialism aka Substance Metaphysics kills brain cells

[Anonymous No.11674878]

>>11674830
>>11674824
Maybe I'll try something like
>Hey did you know that the Zen Buddhists transmit the DEEP truths of the universe not through explicit explanation but with these neat Koans (basically a Socratic Dialogue but for the spiritually enlightened). You don't gain the understanding through thesis-antithesis or probing with questions, but through the feeling in your gut that cannot be explicitly articulated they invoke. I have a lecture series by Robert Anton Wilson on cassette tape, wanna listen to them and chill?

[Anonymous No.11674882]

>>11674863
Based
/lit/ needs more bro culture

[Anonymous No.11674884]

>>11672876
wait does that mean that when the aztecs spoke to each other Teotl was used in almost every sentence?

[Anonymous No.11674893]

>>11674878
>lol I don't know anything about Buddhism either

[Anonymous No.11674899]

>>11674893
TFW I am the zen master in this thread.

[Anonymous No.11674906]

>>11674878
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.11674953]

>>11674893
Imagine being a Theravada elitist past the year 1000. You can hop on the vehicle whenever you need to friend.

[Anonymous No.11674958]

>>11674953
Why are you baiting against your own position now?

Insufficiently aryan

[Anonymous No.11675000]

>>11674386
>>11674440
>>11674480

thank you for writing these posts anon.

[Anonymous No.11675062]

>>11674440
>This continuous struggle is where balance comes from: over a longterm time scale this constant back and forth struggle results in balance. Where badness comes in (in ethics, immorality; in aesthetics, ugliness) is when one inamic completely overtakes the other and snuffs it out. Black cannot exist without White at a fundamental level (what is black if you have no white to compare it to). These are not fundamental constants or forces; there's an infinite number of them, they're purely made by human recognition of patterns. These patterns are not "Platonic Forms", they're purely just humans noticing specific patterns; they're a figment of our mind trying to understand the universe. If humans were deaf, there'd be less of them. If humans could echolocate, there'd be more of them. This is the "Unity of Opposites" that Heraclitus talks about.

this makes so much sense. it's an organic world, an immanent world. it's not a transcendent one. and you can see where a kind of fetish for longevity might even come in too: just existing through the centuries would be a thing to boast about. why conquer or go elsewhere? it's enough just to keep your own cultural shit together.

>>11674480
>The universe will keep on trucking; Teotling has always existed and is all that will exist. There is no beginning, no end, just Teotling. BUT, the sun (the Aztecs understood "our world" in terms of numbered suns) is not immortal; the universe is actually on its fifth sun according to the Aztecs. There were maybe more suns before that, maybe not. Some gods can survive the death and birth of a sun, some can't. Humans certainly cannot except by going to one of the many other realms, but those are quite hostile to human life. So, it's up to the clusters of processes we call "humans" to engage in the regulation of their environment to keep the processes they want to keep going going. Namely, the rising of the sun.

this one really gets me. *just because the gods/the divine is present doesn't mean your civilizational problems are solved.* the gods aren't dead or lost at all. they're very much there - maybe you wish they weren't. b/c you have to keep up with 'them' and who the fuck knows what they want. New Sincerity indeed.

in circumstances like that a rationalist or a great psychologist would just seem...confused. that would have been a job for priests and oracles.

>It's a zero sum, but a slippery one. The world is slippery to the Aztecs, you need to stay on the middle of the mountain or you tumble down.

and there is no mercy down there.

>The place of no pity is the site of ruthlessness. Let’s say that ruthlessness, being a specific position of the assemblage point, is shown in the eyes of sorcerers. It’s like a shimmering film over the eyes. The eyes of sorcerers are brilliant. The greater the shine, the more ruthless the sorcerer is. When the assemblage point moves to the place of no pity, the eyes begin to shine.

really fascinating posts anon, ty

[Anonymous No.11675125]

>>11674884
>>11674884
No, that's a specific point: language is insufficient. We humans, by our nature, cannot underatand Teotl as it is. It's just the same as how we cannot see IR and UV, or how eyeless cave lizards cannot see. The Maya, in the Popol Vuh, have a myth about how at first the gods made man, but basically gave us xray vision. They feared our ability to see Teotl as they did, as the universe actually was, would allow us to eventually overthrow them. So they took it away; the Popol Vuh describes this as the gods breathing fog onto a mirror. We cannot see Teotl clearly, but we can see it unclearly. We can examine Teotl via philosophy and get a fuzzy picture even though we cannot just look at it.

Heraclitus lamented this, saying how we're all idiots who cannot see the truth even after being told it.

[Anonymous No.11675154]

>>11675125
Its not just looking thats limited, its our thinking, when we think of something we have already failed to grasp it. Its like believing we can capture a river by cupping some of its water with our hands

[Anonymous No.11675155]

>>11675125
Which is what Bohm's work is into here:
>>11674738

And what Jeremy England's Dissipation-driven Adaptation model is into.
And what the following excerpt is into:

>To demonstrate the point, suppose you experience a visual illusion. A discrepancy is introduced between the real object and the visual representation of the object inside the brain. You look at a rock with illusory properties and are asked to report what is there. What do you report? Obviously, you report the informational representation, not the real thing. Due to a trick of perspective, you might decide it is triangular when it is actually square. You might decide it is smaller than your hand when it is actually larger than your whole body but much farther away than you think. Your decision machinery does not have direct access to the real object, only to the information about the object that is encoded in the visual system.


>The issue runs deeper than occasional illusions in which a representation in the brain is incorrect. A perceptual representation is always inaccurate because it is a simplification. Let me remind you of an example from the previous chapter, the case of color and, in particular, the color white. Actual white light contains a mixture of all colors. We know it from experiment. But the model of white light constructed in the brain does not contain that information. White is not represented in the brain as a mixture of colors but as luminance that lacks all color. A fundamental gap exists between the physical thing being represented (a mixture of electromagnetic wavelengths) and the simplified representation of it in the brain (luminance without color). The brain’s representation describes something in violation of physics. It took Newton to discover the discrepancy.

(Graziano, Consciousness and the Social Brain)

[Anonymous No.11675173]

>>11675125
>language is insufficient.

and out of that insufficiency, over-sufficiency, excess sufficiency: efficiency. it becomes technology, cybernetics.

i think this is what heidegger intuited. Being *vibrates.* he grasped the distinction between the ontic and the ontological, and completely brilliantly. but the more you divide them, the more you drift from what, in a way, its original substrate actually is, a thing that is neither being nor becoming, but an impersonal process theology that we sometimes have to reach back through our own language to discover, the big hermeneutic deep-dive.

even for the greeks the gods are beholden to processes that are ultimately tragic for the self-determining consciousness. perhaps in ways not unlike the indian gods, as emanations or manifestations of an ultimate Brahman, which is in turn twinned to the Atman that seeks to know it.

we're off to a cybernetic nightmare today in which all these distinctions are at risk of collapsing, but we do it to ourselves. we have to know.

>Driven by a new kind of virtue, cybernetics questions the character or essence of humanity. It ungrounds our classical assumptions, our metaphysical coordinates. It has an uncanny tendency to dissolve rigorous divisions between human beings and animals, and then in turn the holy division between animals and machines. Ontological collapse. Becoming-machine is always a becoming-animal, but the dissolution goes even further than this.

>Within the networked folds of communicating devices, a new aspect of humanity is awakening, a new kind of struggle for enlightenment and freedom across the globe. A revolution between people, a revival of human society, a dynamic, even exuberant regeneration through interconnection and multiplicity. Cybernetics provokes an apparent and disturbing contradiction: it is a purely immanent, historical intervention, itself a kind of abstract social ‘machine’ which transforms all manner of social practices.

https://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/deconstructing-cybernetics/

[Anonymous No.11675214]

>>11675173
Why must it be a nightmare?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10cVVHKCRWw

Dissipation-driven Adaptation is real, anon.

To me nothing could be more beautiful than to realize the situation we find ourselves in more accurately

[Anonymous No.11675315]

>>11674872
Honestly I think Aristotle BTFO Heraclitus' "everything is change". The basic objection to the idea that everything is change is the simple question of what undergoes the change. In order for change to change it must apply to something, as if it does not attach to anything then there is nothing for it to change (nothing within which it might deploy itself), which leads to an inquiry that finally reveals that as change attaches to something, then it follows that this something must precede or be prior to it, as it is in applying to something that change can be what it is - in other words change becomes a predicate of a subject.

Aristotle also had some pretty unkind words against those that call speech meaningless like >>11674830 The argument is very simple: anyone that wants to argue that speech is meaningless has to open his mouth to do so and has in that same moment contradicted himself THE STUPID FOOL and can be safely ignored while more productive work is done, like say working out the exact number of unmoved movers (hard to pin down but probably 47 or 52).

I also like his defence against Parmenides' "everything is one," which involves the concept of thisness. Superficially it sounds like the Buddhist idea of "suchness" but actually refers to something very different, namely to the basic fact that in ordinary experience things are presented as separate and particular. Thisness refers to the distinctiveness of a thing which renders the simple word "this" meaningful in regard to it, e.g. if I point to a lamp and say "this" you will know full well I'm speaking of a lamp and not a table or a bed or jet plane, or if I point to a dog breed in a catalogue and say "this" you will similarly know that it is this breed and no other that I refer to. This is in opposition to say a category like "animal" which cannot be indicated by "this", in this case this category (like all universals) lacks thisness. This leads him to consider particularity and difference (not unity) as central to reality).

[Anonymous No.11675326]

>>11675214
>why must it be a nightmare?
why indeed.

it's not a nightmare if you *know what to do.* but this is a rather thorny problem. especially if you have the weird vertiginous feeling that all of your models are collapsing or dissolving (or being replaced with simulacra that know you better than you know yourself). and when We Live In a Society in which discussion of what "we" might do - from the individual, to the interpersonal, to the civilizational sense, micro to macro - is basically being quarantined off by new social mythologies (or pathologies) that do not even begin to scratch the tip of the iceberg.

i'm with you in the sense that, yes, if people can adapt to the new paradigm - life after the linguistic turn - then there's no telling what good may come of it. and one of the reasons this book appealed to me was - besides the connections to D&G - that it shows that Middle Way civilization really is preferable to the vita chichimeca, that being neither vita activa nor vita contemplativa. i realize that such an insight is hardly rocket science.

but then there's the other side: the despair that comes from saying, great, i've learned to fit in just in time to realize that all of this is simply raw data for algorithms. oh and, by the way, you can forget about philosophy, since critique of ideology is nonsense also.

http://onlineopen.org/capital-thinks-too

do you see what i mean?
>yes, you are a confused vagabond, a brainlet tadpole adrift in deep waters
i mean, other than this? i know that it can perhaps seem like i'm just setting up pessimistic strawmen in every direction, but it's not like i haven't put in a little time learning to weave them. we're stuck, in a way, amidst the wandering rocks: "you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here."

so, there is some frustration. but such is life. i created a thread about augustine last week to vent similar frustrations, those being hardly a new or recent phenomenon. now my attention has wandered to the new world. so far it's been a productive voyage. the aztecs had their own problems also.

but i will listen to this video now and perhaps it will change my mind. no doubt it will. and thanks for sharing.

[Anonymous No.11675394]

>>11672916
Brandon?
How the fuck have you been, my dude?

[Anonymous No.11675448]

>>11675315
And yet particle physics teaches us that Aristotle was wrong.

The atom, and it's components are made of vibration.
And that makes up everything.
So essences are summarily blown out 5eva

We know that Energy and Matter are the same thing in various states.

The thing Aristotle is working from is Attention Schema, modeling complex stuff in the brain as in the example of white light.
It's the definition of superficially, it literally deals with appearances alone.

[Anonymous No.11675458]

>>11675326
Just remember my favorite quote:
>There is chaos under heaven, the situation is excellent!

That is to say, crisis is often the prerequisite for opportunity

[Anonymous No.11675459]

>>11675448
What would you say to the idea that process ontology is incompatible with worded explanations of it? That words inherently substantiate, sort of speak

[Anonymous No.11675476]

>>11675459
That we have to use non-vocalized thought ought to be a given.

Read The Master Game by DeRopp for a crash course on breaking the habit of thinking-only-linguistically.

No heavy-lifting can be done from the most shallow end of the ocean of your computational powers

[Anonymous No.11675555]

>>11675458
indeed it is anon. thanks for reminding me.

i think i'm just having Chichimec Problems. vagabond woes (and not the sexy kind, like pic rel). i feel like i've become chichimec but am only sort of realizing it now and it sucks. b/c surely there were chichimec critiques of modernity also.

>be pantsless wanderer
>see giant temple
>detect presence of libidinal capitalism
>gain prestige points
>feel mysteriously unfulfilled
>still being chased by jaguars
>also flies &c
>contract dysentery
>harbor secret desire to join society
>remind oneself that all is vanity, get mesmerized staring at ocean
>be about to repeat chichimec cycle
>see conquistadores approach
>fuck my whole life
>try to carve one last ironic glyph before World-Spirit does its thing

i can't unsee this whole vagabond/chichimec thing today.

>>11675476
>the master game by deropp
this is why i come to /lit/

[Anonymous No.11675596]

>>11674566
Thanks for book recommendation and interesting thread, OP and others.

[Anonymous No.11676486]

>>11674696
Catholicism never advocated circumcision you mong

[Anonymous No.11677111]

bump

[Anonymous No.11677286]

>>11672916
based
and
red
pill
ed

[Anonymous No.11677352]

>>11675125
thats not what i asked. i wanted to know if the aztecs in everyday life used Teotl as verb in nearly every sentence. do we know about aztec sentence structure?

[Anonymous No.11677368]

>>11677352
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahuatl

Have fun, learn things

[Anonymous No.11677377]

>>11677352
Also, read the fucking book in question (Maffie, Aztec Philosophy) , it literally quotes Mexicatl (Aztec) poetry throughout.
This isn't reconstructed bullshit like Western Esotericism, we have primary sources

[Anonymous No.11677386]

>>11674627
I just became
now what?

[Anonymous No.11677474]

>>11670156
So it's just another facet of Logos-Tao bullshittery?

[Anonymous No.11677500]

>>11677474
i don't understand. the tao isn't the logos, and neither are bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11677553]

>>11677500
The incomprehensible other which encompasses everything, there are a trillion words for this.

[Anonymous No.11677559]

>>11677553
It's not an other though kiddo

[Anonymous No.11677569]

>>11677553
>incomprehensible
>other

Why do people "feel like" skim-reading Wikipedia "basically just" replaces intellectual labor?

[Anonymous No.11677580]

>>11674386
>The Priestly Religion, however, saw that because of the constitutional monism of the world, there were no gods. There were no priests, either, or worshipers, or temples, or anything: There is just Teotl. The gods themselves were really just clusters of processes. The god of war is not just a glowy dude who goes around fighting: He literally is war as a concept. The god of love is not just a glowy lady that goes around playing matchmaker: He literally is love as a concept. The god of rot and decay is not just an ugly guy who goes around wallowing in shit: He literally is rot and decay.

thanks for your posts, anon.

also i couldn't help but notice in your paraphrasing of Maffie how similar this deity concept is to the gods of the Elder Scrolls. Nocturnal isn't just a goddess of thieves, she is the shadows they hide in and the lockpick in their hand. Daedric princes (and Aedra, for that matter) are understood to be one with their realm. The "good" Aedra who sacrificed parts of themselves to make the world are anthropomorphized in something very much like Roman gods: if not ancestors, then spirits of responsible commerce, wind and rain, industry, love, the laws of mortality. They are not merely beings, but also the fabric of mortal experience when these processes occur (or more properly, experienced).

[Anonymous No.11677593]

>>11677559
>>11677569
Have fun with your make-believe, kiddo

[Anonymous No.11677594]

>>11677553
i suppose, but part of the joy (madness) of philosophy is trying to make some sense of the incomprehensible. partly that explains the trillions of words.

the nature - what little of it we can know - of that Incomprehensible Thing, matters. is it tao? is it logos? is it teotl? is it Spirit? all of the above? none?

[Anonymous No.11677769]

>>11677593
>he doesn't know

[Anonymous No.11677777]

This thread smells awful
>>11672140
>enlightened asshat virtue signals as he parrots words from dusty tomes

[Anonymous No.11677802]

>>11672916
being fair N's WTP is really distinct from most conceptions of monism and N was explicitly not a monist at all and believed in an irreconcilable multiplicity of forces which constituted an action called the Will and even this he was ambivalent about and remember he was also into biologism and eliminativist materialism which none of these people were capable of swallowing, save for Heidegger who unintentionally killed God forever and all ontotheology (which is what this stupid shit is)

[Anonymous No.11677809]

>>11677777
>projecting this hard
>implying old is a bad thing

[Anonymous No.11677813]

>>11677777
kek approved this message. Maffie's book is alright, but all the dweebs with yellow fever quoting vedas need to become relevant by syncretizing their ideas with the current age.

[Anonymous No.11677835]

>>11677769
>brahmaboo frogposter THINKS he knows

[Anonymous No.11677878]

>>11670156
stupid mexicans

[Anonymous No.11677884]

>>11677835
>doesn't realize Vedic metaphysics predate the earliest Greek thinkers by half a millenium

[Anonymous No.11677887]

>>11677884
>time

>"first"

[Anonymous No.11677896]

>>11674480
>There is no beginning, no end, just Teotling. BUT, the sun (the Aztecs understood "our world" in terms of numbered suns) is not immortal; the universe is actually on its fifth sun according to the Aztecs. There were maybe more suns before that, maybe not. Some gods can survive the death and birth of a sun, some can't. Humans certainly cannot except by going to one of the many other realms, but those are quite hostile to human life. So, it's up to the clusters of processes we call "humans" to engage in the regulation of their environment to keep the processes they want to keep going going. Namely, the rising of the sun.
>To do this, Aztec Tlamatinime (philosophers and wise-men) found the best way to do this would be to transfer olin energy to the sun in order to feed it. The heart is a source of olin energy (cyclic motion), so the Aztecs engaged in mass heart-sacrifice to feed the sun. A bunch of other things did this, like the sacrifice of pregnant women (I believe this had something to do with rain and water). This is why the Aztecs setup their empire in such a manner as to harvest the barbarians around them: They were doing exactly that, harvesting them. This works in the long term because Teotling is all there is, so in theory the sun will give back enough olin to keep making hearts to give to the sun. It's a zero sum, but a slippery one. The world is slippery to the Aztecs, you need to stay on the middle of the mountain or you tumble down.

I have seen this before!

[Anonymous No.11677901]

>>11677809
projection isn't real, has never ever been demonstrated in a replicable study before and my complaint was that the person is a fucking faggot who i gurantee considers themselves somewhat enlightened and is passive aggressively virtue signaling while literally parroting a tome from a dead culture which has absolutely no value to anyone besides Sanksrit scholars and scholars of comparative religious studies you massive cunt
>>11677813
never post pedo-ephoebophile trap abominations on my board, never ever say kek to me or ever again on this site unless you mean kek as in lol, never ever use the word dweeb again, (you) are a dweeb faggot for saying kek, do not reply to me, yellow fever refers specifically to the East Asians you stupid fucking whigger nationalist subhuman, kill yourself

[Anonymous No.11677910]

>>11677901
which one is "your" board?

[Anonymous No.11677937]

>>11675155
>I heard essentialism means gender is binary, but I'm becoming-woman
This is what your shilling boils down to, which is why you don't actually have even a cursory handle on the topic or a single argument against it.

[Anonymous No.11677961]

>>11677910
All things before me are my property, but i only hold a nominal suzerainty over 4chan as a whole, my realm proper is /lit/ and /tv/ but i do expect tribute from /pol/ /sci/ /g/ and /fit/ however I'm willing to allow autonomy for the latter boards as their autocthonous culture is potent and productive enough to satisfy me without my needing to interfere. however, here I expect nothing less than total submission to my iron Will.

[Anonymous No.11678034]

>>11677937
What does any of this have to do with gender theory?
I don't buy into that voodoo.

Why do you think that?

[Anonymous No.11678103]

>>11678034
lol, just guessing, thanks for clarifying. I'm looking at antiessentialism as an example of the broad antimetaphysics collective shitpost of the last century +

[Anonymous No.11678146]

>>11678103
This is a thread about Process Metaphysics, why would it be antimetaphysics?

[Anonymous No.11678401]

>>11674878
>>11674794
What legitimately confuses me is that people like you can be so intimately familiar with mystic propositions and their accompanying worldviews and then disregard them all as just being "word nonsense."

It's like, are you legitimately arguing that the Vedas, the Buddhist sutras, etc. are just the works of unenlightened hippies looking to get their dicks wet from impressionable lay girls? Is any sort of non-dual or idealist understanding of the comsos totally irreconcilable to you? Or have I misplaced you entirely?

[Anonymous No.11678415]

>>11678146
*cleaves your path*
this return to process strikes me as a case of too little too late tinged with all manner of tism after all the furious kerfuffle this little rapscallion initiated

[Anonymous No.11678439]

>>11670475
the book of the dead describes a lot of indigenous tibetan beliefs and practices through the lens of buddhism. this is why similar practices aren't present in other regions, and thus, the fundamental bulk of the book of the dead can't be traced back to hindu scripture/philosophy

[Anonymous No.11678904]

Bumparooney Neighborino

[Anonymous No.11680091]

The best thread on the whole board

[Anonymous No.11680181]

more related stuff here. not quite as good as the maffie book imho, but still interesting:

>[Itz] is within everything. There is nowhere it is not. It is evenly distributed through the world, as it is the vital essence that allows the world to act as it does. Even this language does not capture it, however. Itz is not distributed at all, because it does not admit of quantity. In this way, itz is a concept closer to that of “the good” or “the noble.” Goodness or nobility exists where it does, not in greater or lesser quantity, but as itself whole or not at all. Even closer to itz is a concept like “life.”

>This understanding of itz, as unifying essence of things, suggests another meaning of itz that may have been accepted by the ancient Maya—itz as truth. While there are no direct statements in Maya texts suggesting that itz is used to predicate truth to statements, persons, or anything else, we can find indirect evidence in the use of itz in connection with certain deities as well as its etymology to suggest that itz was understood as expressing a concept of truth.

>There is a clear connection of this sense of itz to that of the “vital essence” of all things in the cosmos, linking them all, and through which the itzam (sage, shaman, one who directs itz) can reveal unseen aspects of the world. Beginning as the fullness or potency of words and language, the concept of itz likely expanded over time to mean the fullness or potency of things in general. Both a generalized concept of truth, and a concept of the feature of things that makes them effective or potent, the vital essence that animates them and makes them what they are. The shaman is one who is able to access the itz inherent in all things because of the uniquely potent manifestation of his or her own itz (in the form of ch’ul).

>Maffie, following Leon-Portilla, offers an interpretation of the Aztec concept of neltiliztli as an account of truth as “well-rootedness.” What an entity is rooted in that makes it well-rooted is teotl, which is ultimate reality and a continual active process. Truth is understood primarily in terms of its support of instances of knowledge (tlamatiliztli), where knowledge specifically has to do with skill or performance.

[Anonymous No.11681492]

>>11680181
basedtli and redteotl'd

(been looking for Maya equivalent to Maffie for a while now)

[Anonymous No.11681629]

>>11680181
>>11675062
>>11674440

Inamic pairs makes me think of this recursion yin-yang.
I found the Inamichuan to be really interesting to contemplate.
Nahua Metaphysics makes Taoism look primitive

[Anonymous No.11681808]

>mfw people think oblivious negation is even contrary to the One, let alone outside of it

[Anonymous No.11682152]

Bump for the bump god

[Anonymous No.11682369]

>Don Juan Matus as a teacher endeavored, from the very instant we met, to introduce me to the cognitive world of the shamans of ancient Mexico. The term “cognition” was, for me at that time, a bone of tremendous contention. I understood it as the process by which we recognize the world around us.

>Don Juan maintained, from the start of our association, that the world of the sorcerers of ancient Mexico was different from ours, not in a shallow way, but different in the way in which the process of cognition was arranged. He maintained that in our world our cognition requires the interpretation of sensory data. He said that the universe is composed of an infinite number of energy fields that exist in the universe at large as luminous filaments. Those luminous filaments act on man as an organism. The response of the organism is to turn those energy fields into sensory data. Sensory data is then interpreted, and that interpretation becomes our cognitive system. My understanding of cognition forced me to believe that it is a universal process, as language is a universal process. There is a different syntax for every language, as there must be a slightly different arrangement for every system of interpretation in the world.

>Don Juan's assertion, however, that the shamans of ancient Mexico had a different cognitive system, was, for me, equivalent to saying that they had a different way of communicating that had nothing to do with language. What I desperately wanted him to say was that their different cognitive system was the equivalent of having a different language but that it was a language nonetheless. “The end of an era” meant, to Don Juan, that the units of a foreign cognition were beginning to take hold. The units of my normal cognition, no matter how pleasant and rewarding they were for me, were beginning to fade.

>“But, don Juan, is all this possible? Can one actually read energy as if it were a text?” I asked, overwhelmed by the idea.
>“Of course it's possible!” he retorted. “In your case, it's not only possible, it's happening to you.”
>“But why reading it, as if it were a text?” I insisted, but it was a rhetorical insistence.
>“It's an affectation on your part,” he said. “If you read the text, you could repeat it verbatim. However, if you tried to be a viewer of infinity instead of a reader of infinity, you would find that you could not describe whatever you were viewing, and you would end up babbling inanities, incapable of verbalizing what you witness. The same thing if you tried to hear it. This is, of course, specific to you. Anyway, infinity chooses. The warrior-traveler simply acquiesces to the choice.
>"But above all,” he added after a calculated pause, “don't be overwhelmed by the event because you cannot describe it. It is an event beyond the syntax of our language.”

-- carlos castaneda, the active side of infinity

[Anonymous No.11682418]

>>11682369
Some kid in a thread that just got archived was utterly confused by the idea that language/thought isn't restricted to vocalization.

I love hearing the rusted cognitive wheels creaking into action like that

[Anonymous No.11682459]

>>11682418
i know that feel. the good news is that he's in for such a treat tho when it hits him tho. such a fucking treat. like, one of the ultimate treats of treats, that one. what heidegger called the metaphysics of production.

more from the active side:

>Can you tell me, don Juan, specifically, what is wrong with my stories? I know that they are nothing, but the rest of my life is just like that."

>"I will repeat this to you," he said. "The stories of a warrior's album are not personal. Your story of the day you were admitted to school is nothing but your assertion about you as the center of everything. You feel, you don't feel; you realize, you don't realize. Do you see what I mean? All of the story is just you."

>"But how can it be otherwise, don Juan?" I asked.

>"In your other story, you almost touch on what I want, but you turn it again into something extremely personal. I know that you could add more details, but all those details would be an extension of your person and nothing else."

>"I sincerely cannot see your point, don Juan," I protested. "Every story seen through the eyes of the witness has to be, perforce, personal."

>"Yes, yes, of course," he said, smiling, delighted as usual by my confusion. "But then they are not stories for a warrior's album. They are stories for other purposes. The memorable events we are after have the dark touch of the impersonal. That touch permeates them. I don't know how else to explain this."

i can do without the warrior stuff, but the rest is good advice.

[Anonymous No.11682575]

>>11672916
>So I BOUGHT A TURTLENECK JUST LIKE FOUCAULT, and now what?

[Anonymous No.11682963]

>>11670156
>Teotl is nonpersonal, nonminded, nonagentive, and nonintentional. It is not a deity, person, or subject possessing emotions, cognitions, grand intentions, or Teotl goals. It is not an all-powerful benevolent or malevolent god. It is neither a legislative agent characterized by free will nor an omniscient intellect. Teotl is thoroughly amoral, that is, it is wholly lacking in moral qualities such as good and evil. Like the changing of the seasons, teotl’s constant changing lacks moral properties.

[Anonymous No.11683055]

This is a really fascinating thread. Thanks OP!
I've had a copy of the Popol Vuh sitting on my shelf for a few years now and you've inspired me to finally get around to reading it.

[Anonymous No.11683064]

>>11682418
feels bad. you had a real living ancient Roman here on earth and you erased him.

[Anonymous No.11683325]

>>11682963
They would probably agree with you that it is ontologically "nothing"

[Anonymous No.11683347]

>>11682963

[Anonymous No.11683357]

>>11670156
Am I rarted or does this sound a whole lot like Nietzsche's conception of the will to power as the underlying force in the world

[Anonymous No.11683387]

>>11683357
you're not retarded at all. the concept of teotl also kind of reminds me of qi, the universe as having a kind of life-force or energy that people can 'tap into' - but only because that's just how people are built, biologically speaking.

the difference is in what you *do* with that energy. there's no ready equivalent of nietzsche in china (at least in the sense of WtP or a zarathustra). that a force or power underlies the world seems to be given in a lot of different cultures. but where it enters into ethics, morality and so on is where cultures differ (or sometimes resemble each other).

you can be a wise old practitioner of chinese traditional medicine or you can be an overman-artist. it's possible that both of these things still ultimately participate in the same phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.11683400]

>>11683387
>a force or power underlies the world seems to be given in a lot of different cultures
well it is just obviously true in any sense you care to think about. The physical concept of energy is the same thing really as the idea of matter, as i(admittedly poorly) understand it, or at least the two can convert between each other.

[Anonymous No.11683422]

>>11683387
The idea that all those forces are perhaps parts of the same phenomenon is extremely interesting. I'll have to look into qi. Extremely good thread op, keep it up

[Anonymous No.11683423]

>>11683400
That's where Bohm's Undivided Universe comes in: Implicate and Explicate Orders of Reality

[Anonymous No.11683440]

[Anonymous No.11683441]

>>11683423
>Undivided Universe comes in: Implicate and Explicate Orders of Reality
oh fuck me i shouldnt read this, it is making me feel insane

>In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders

i had this exact idea, and i termed the relations between the things a dream order, which was dominated by obscure infinite burgeonings appearing, merging, etc. but it was beyond our normal conceptions of space and time, exactly how a dream is, which is why i used the word

the thing is i dont know anything about quantum physics so i am going to misunderstand what he's saying and just run off into delusional thought patterns

[Anonymous No.11683446]

>>11683422
its actually the complete opposite of interesting and is also what Nietzsche tried desperately to avoid with his rejection of monism

[Anonymous No.11683453]

>>11677368
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahuatl
>ctrl+f teotl
>zero results found


so no? fucking just answer the question already if you dont know say you just dont know

[Anonymous No.11683455]

>>11683441
So read pic related, the Kaulas teach this as Matrika and Bhairava, the unmanifest and manifest orders, which is essentially the same idea.
A famous popularization of Bohm's books can be found in The Holographic Universe, btw

[Anonymous No.11683464]

>>11683453
Jesus kid.

They used it about as much as we use the word "reality".

[Anonymous No.11683465]

>>11683455
wow it must be just like the Physicist’s ideas which come from mathematics and which you don’t understand because u did not study theoretical physics but chose something easy like phil or theology or law

[Anonymous No.11683475]

>>11683465
Cool projection kiddo

[Anonymous No.11683478]

>>11683422
>>11683400

well, just to carry on from this, and since >>11683357 brought up nietzsche: what you get with nietzsche is something that really *does* warrant interest, which is bending that circuit of power back on itself in/as an anthropotechnic project.

in both traditional chinese civilization and in the aztecs there are certainly things like heroic kings and warriors and so on, but with nietzsche you have this much more radical insight: the cultural breeding of the superman and so on. if God is dead, that implication extends to the polytheistic universe as well. and an aztec equivalent of nietzsche would find as many sickly humanist-priests dwelling in tenochtitlan or elsewhere. nietzsche is special in that sense (and so is heidegger, and lots of other thinkers who follow from this).

but there are other ways to consider our relations to these things. there's ervin laszlo and all kinds of funky new-age science stuff, some of which is credible and some of which can go fully into wonderland. i have a kind of penchant for that kind of stuff, but tastes vary.

it is interesting to think about, tho.

[Anonymous No.11683479]

>>11683464
was that so fucking hard? straight up just answering a question and instead of being an uptight asshole and making me reply like 2 times? get over yourself cuntface

[Anonymous No.11683495]

>>11683479
I figured if you're curious about the Nahuatl language you should engage with it directly

Double dumbass on you

[Anonymous No.11683508]

>>11683478
I seriously doubt any honest person could call the Aztec Clergy to be "humanist" in the way Catholic clergy are, which is what N was reacting to

[Anonymous No.11683535]

>>11683508
okay, so, not exactly the same, sure. the aztecs have very different sensibilities from the catholics. a little poetic license is required here for the analogue.

but suppose some bold aztec visionary just decided that he'd had enough of all of this nepantla. like a sort of akenhaten figure. these things happen.

perhaps 'humanist' is wrong word. i mean a figure who might suddenly decide that the role of the priests in that society was due for a radical rectification of names. is 'culturalist' the right word for this? that he basically destroys Middle Way philosophies of tradition, and urges a kind of renaissance-style humanism, complete with borgias, cloaks, daggers, and also statues of david. much else. having the same bowling ball effect on the way a civilization thinks that nietzsche's had on the west.

[Anonymous No.11683575]

>>11683535
That impulse came from outside via Spain, didn't it?
Turns out replacing Process Metaphysics with Substance Metaphysics takes you from the largest city in the world with one of the most advanced cultures (culture as opposed to technology) to a third world place only a few rungs higher than places where people poop on the beach

Really jogs the nog

[Anonymous No.11683608]

>>11683575
i had a feeling that post would come out confusing, i'm saying a bunch of different things at once and probably none of them all that well.

>damn shamanic nietzsche with your poetic visions of homo superior
>messing up my nice cozy nondual post-post-postmodern theory of everything
>why i oughta

anywyas. can you explain what you mean in a little more detail? i'm having trouble following you but i'm really interested in what you mean:

>That impulse came from outside via Spain, didn't it?

>replacing Process Metaphysics with Substance Metaphysics takes you from the largest city in the world with one of the most advanced cultures (culture as opposed to technology) to a third world place

so, explain please.

[Anonymous No.11683672]

>>11683608
The new ideology was imposed from without by the Spanish, and Catholicism is the Substance Metaphysics that is the radical antithesis to the native Process Metaphysics.

When the Spanish landed, Tenochtitlan was one of if not THE largest and most cultured city in the entire world.

Now Mexico is a Narcocracy and fairly low on the international totem pole of culture and economy.

That isn't to say Latin America is all like that, South America has some amazing culture and economy. Mexico simply does not.

[Anonymous No.11683686]

>>11675448
>And yet particle physics teaches us that Aristotle was wrong.
STOP.

[Anonymous No.11683689]

>>11683608

[Anonymous No.11683727]

>>11683672
ok, i understand more clearly now. thanks for clarifying.

>>11683689
i had to dig out my image of the tech tree to remember which one this was. by quetzalcoatl i declare this game was fucking based.

[Anonymous No.11683779]

>>11683686
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/science-magazines/physics-aristotelian-physics

Above article goes into ways Aristotle was just plain wrong starting from his time forward.
It doesn't even touch post-relativity ideas that are the final nail.

I know you really have a hard on for the guy, but Aristotle was glaringly wrong on nearly every subject.

[Anonymous No.11683792]

>>11683686
Here's a nice list of some of my favorite btfo's for Aristotle:

>Men have more teeth than women.
>Heavy objects fall faster than light objects.
>Men's blood is hotter than women's blood.
>There are people who are naturally born to be slaves, and it is just and right to enslave them.
>The earth is the center of the universe.
>The earth and everything in it existed for all eternity and will exist for all eternity.
>Some animals spontaneously come into being from mud and earth; they don't reproduce.
>The natural state for all objects is to be at rest; they require constant application of force to move.
>There are a total of seven heavenly bodies, which are perfect and never change.
>The heart is the organ of reason and intellect.
>The function of the brain is to cool the blood.

[Anonymous No.11683807]

>>11683779
>>11683792
shut the FUCK up you pseud. my objection is to your worthless, brainlet mystical appeal to physics you obviously don't understand.

[Anonymous No.11683818]

>>11683807
Let's have you back up YOUR assertion.
Show me how misunderstood David Bohm

[Anonymous No.11683835]

>>11683818
my assertion is that you are a drooling mongoloid who has never studied physics in any serious way. here is my evidence:
>>11675448
>And yet particle physics teaches us that Aristotle was wrong.
now please kindly kill you are self

[Anonymous No.11683853]

>>11683835
>adhom based on vague feelings about hippies

Okay kid, I accept your forfeit

[Anonymous No.11684298]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uaIeY-FGpI
Link to talk that the guy who wrote the book gave.

[Anonymous No.11684312]

>>11684298
Kickass

[Anonymous No.11684318]

>>11670156

Based upon the past 48 hours, it seems as though at least one anon is actually reading and engaging with a book-a D&G book, anyway. So good in general "actually read books" principles I guess.

The umpteenth thread earlier today about Guattari's "sexual kamikaze" personal life was tiresome though, and when taken on its own merits, exposed the usual coldness of the leftist mind. At least one other anon recognized this.

[Anonymous No.11684534]

>>11672916
>tfw you get exposed as a pseud because you thought you were deep for understanding Heidegger's collapse of binaries

[Anonymous No.11684555]

>>11677593

[Anonymous No.11684564]

>>11681808
lol

[Anonymous No.11685033]

>>11683853
cringe

[Anonymous No.11685168]

>>11685033
"cringe" is yet another description of your dumb feelings, totally devoid of arguments.

Brainlet as fuck

[Anonymous No.11685211]

>>11685168
Aristotle a million times the mind you'll ever be. Must be nice chucking spitballs from the back row.

[Anonymous No.11685987]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11686144]

>>11685211
It'd be fine for you at any time to back up any of your stupid opinions instead of just expressing that you're mad at me for not liking thing

As an even more intelligent choice, you could engage the OP subject in some way.

[Anonymous No.11686171]

Am i the only one that feels something is coming? a very sudden change in collective conscious thought

[Anonymous No.11686177]

>>11686171
no there are millions of new-age brain sumps just like you all over the world

[Anonymous No.11686178]

>>11685168
cringe

[Anonymous No.11686417]

>>11686177
>>11686178

More adhoms with no articulation

You can't even tell us why we're wrong, you can only grunt your distaste

Hunchbrain

[Anonymous No.11687100]

This thread is great

[Anonymous No.11688039]

>>11683423
What do I need to understand this?

[Anonymous No.11688049]

>>11688039
Websters Collegiate Dictionary and Wikipedia should get you through the technical bits that could confuse you, it's a philosophy book outright written by a physicist so he had non physicists in mind

[Anonymous No.11688062]

>>11688039
Also you can start by review of the man and his work
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI66ZglzcO0

[Anonymous No.11688567]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11689698]

Bump