/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11721003]

Time is the lag of being: the self exists only as that which coincides with its sense-experience at any given moment: knowledge is possible only as the re-capitulation of this original immediacy at a later date - which itself, of course, being another moment in time, means I never achieve full self-transparency, I can only intuit myself as I appear to myself now, or rather, how a past moment appears to me now in this present one, never all at once, and this is the argument Kant uses to deny (what he erroneously assumes to be) mystical woo woo knowledge of the apperceptive self. Knowledge, then, is only possible with my being out-of-joint with myself, what I experience as temporality. If I never fully coincide with myself, I must be this noncoincidence first and foremost. In other words, I can never step outside my own positionality, and have to cope with this fact precisely within positionality: self-knowledge is almost always mistaken, partial, in progress. As Heidegger has it: man is not more than animal because he is rational, he is rational /because/ he is an animal. What I fundamentally am is not so much the back that I can't see, but the impossibility of my ever seeing it, or, nothing but the continuous craning of my neck to see it: the Hegelian dialectic, the infinite positing and overcoming of limits, of what thought initially assumes it can't access and then, miraculously, finds it has already accessed it by this assumption. As with the Buddhist mantra of "this is not I, this is not me, this is not my self": the practitioner is told to repeatedly bring to mind the nothingness of all prospective selves, the self isn't some substantial x but this ongoing, processual dis-identification with any and all substantial x's - the inability to endorse this movement is experienced as loss, grief, the irrevocable passage of time. Buddhism is the AA of the void. Ties in beautifully with Hegel's identity of identity and non-identity: I am not (fully) what I am identified with precisely by my being identified with it ("I am, and yet not I, but God is in me"). Because something is here, that it can't render itself as an object in its own field, and so everything eventually overstays its welcome: the Hegelian dialectic. The apperceptive field in which phenomena emerge and subside is both the only possible condition of their existence and what kills them: "... and man that hath Mind in him, let him learn to know that he himself is deathless, and that cause of death is love, though Love is all."

[Anonymous No.11721007]

Based disheveled Wojak and Pepe poster

[Anonymous No.11721009]

The entire Platonic system is built on the equivalence of goodness with unity. Things are beautiful because they are intelligible, and they are intelligible because of their unity - form. And they are unified because of my presence to them - in other words, because I'm here to receive them as such, because I could not not recieve any other way. As with Kant: intelligibility is coextensive with apperception: there can be no coherent experience that is not at once also intelligible, things make sense because of my being "here" to make them make sense, people who have an eye for the beauty and harmony of the universe have always been regarded as deeper souls because they genuinely are more alive, more "here", than most. The beauty outside me is the beauty inside me, but obviously not in any way that this is volitional, I can't just will myself into finding a turd beautiful, otherwise the Platonic struggle to raise oneself into uninterrupted contemplation of the One is rendered redundant. The witness makes beautiful by his witnessing, God "pre-contains" all beauty in himself because he is you. You are what imposed form on the Waters. A Boltzmann brain that teased the Logos out of the quantum sea like a hair out of the mud. You have to learn how to not take your body personally. Screens have a myopizing effect on your consciousness. So much of modern life is operative only in and as the repression of sub specie aeternitatis. The system throwing up antibodies when confronted by the via negative, the path of scorpions. Thought tumurous, the blind, blinding church of the skull. Who will you be? Another barnacle on the hull of your own soul? Is solitude the rehearsal of death? Yes, but death is the rehearsal of the solitude of being God. The mind of the genius is a scale model of the divine's. Clouds are the dreams of the dead. Nature abhors a vacuum, especially spiritual vacuums. Wait and you will be filled, if not by life then by death. Hoarding angel feathers in the mud. I know you. Who build churches with the salt of your tears. In these cities alone but not loveless. Red light gnostics, reading Iamblichus to Post Malone. I know you. Your demons are just your angels with the lights turned off.

[Anonymous No.11721025]

>>11721003
ever try to actually work out a system my man or is this all we have to look forward to

[Anonymous No.11721061]

>>11721025
systems are antithetical to enlightenment

[Anonymous No.11721080]

>>11721061
why would you ever read Kant or Hegel then?

[Anonymous No.11721088]

>>11721080
because they're brilliant, and absolute knowing in hegel just is the fact that all you ever needed the system for was the demonstration that you (ultimately) don't need a system

[Anonymous No.11721110]

>>11721088
You should study Gurdjieff man.

[Anonymous No.11721130]

>>11721003
>>11721009
DONT YOU FUCKING ZERO-SUM ON ME

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiMZi5P7WJA

IVE BEEN SINKING INTO THIS FOR WEEKS BECAUSE OF YOU

[Anonymous No.11721133]

>>11721088
he wrote an encyclopedia anon, he literally wrote the Science of Logic twice; I think he was interested in systems.

[Anonymous No.11721135]

>>11721061
And posting on chink cartoon boards isn't?

[Anonymous No.11721143]

>>11721133
i think hes trying to say that its a moot point

[Anonymous No.11721152]

>>11721003
This is your brain on philosophy, kids. Remember: every moment you spend contemplating your existence is a moment you are not spending improving your existence.

[Anonymous No.11721157]

>>11721133
well, of course he was, but:

>It is the terrible anticlimax of the Phenomenology to reveal that the ether we've been seeking is just the air we've been breathing from the very beginning.

>
"Before a man studies Zen, to him mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after he gets an insight into the truth of Zen through the instruction of a good master, mountains to him are not mountains and waters are not waters; but after this when he really attains to the abode of rest, mountains are once more mountains and waters are waters."

the full quote references the Logic but I just don't feel like typing it out.

[Anonymous No.11721163]

>>11721130
>referencing based Mitchell Heisman

good stuff anon, Heisman was based, rare to see someone who kills himself for his ideas actually back it up.

[Anonymous No.11721191]

>>11721009
>Hoarding angel feathers in the mud
i like this a lot. can't say it doesn't resonate either

[Anonymous No.11721197]

Fuck I wish I could read English sorry op

[Anonymous No.11721218]

>>11721003
is someone out there compiling all these?

[Anonymous No.11721247]

>>11721218
I am. Only began about a month ago. How long has this anon been dishelvedwojak posting for?

[Anonymous No.11721285]

>>11721247
Do you have a document together? I'd be interested in editing it into a more platable form as a project.

[Anonymous No.11721336]

>>11721009
>I know you
there is immense beauty in this

i want to thank you, anon, for being here, for being now, and for being then, and for reaching out through the singularity to so that i may gaze upon your spirit as we pass in the strata and nod to one another as our eyes meet

its all such a warm thing
i understand with this the perception of its passing, as all things eventually do
thanks bucko

[Anonymous No.11721340]

>>11721247
longer than a month i'm pretty sure

[Anonymous No.11721350]

>>11721247
ive got screencaps

[Anonymous No.11721357]

Do you always post at these times? I finish night shifts at this hour and read your comfy posts on my home stroll

German Idealism is just non-refined perennialism debate me

[Anonymous No.11721367]

>>11721350
please dump them here, we need to create a compilation of these. all in one place.

[Anonymous No.11721394]

>>11721133
hegel was the first cyberneticist

[Anonymous No.11721478]

>>11721003
I seriously need an answer on what you think of Gurdjieff. It’s psyching me out, I need to see you reference him.

[Anonymous No.11721492]

>>11721157
for the last fucking time, you don’t understand Zen shut the fuck up you big attention whoring loud mouth

[Anonymous No.11722058]

>>11721478
haven't studied him but I like the moon energy station stuff, its pretty gnostic. There's a guy on /x/ who used to post AMAs about him that I enjoyed. If u got any good material on him I'd be glad to read it.

[Anonymous No.11722774]

>The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be."
>Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and will not experience death."

[Anonymous No.11722790]

>>11721152
>Implying you can improve something without first contemplating it
You can’t improve something without a goal in mind retard

[Anonymous No.11722921]

>>11721336
Back at ya buddy, keep reading [mystic] to [soundcloud rapper]

[Anonymous No.11722975]

>>11721003
>Time is the lag of being
That's stupid. "Lag" is a span of time, it can't be used to define time. That's like saying space is the cubic meter of being.

[Anonymous No.11722987]

>>11721152
Philosophy has always been a call to change your life.

[Anonymous No.11723008]

>>11721061
Yikes!

[Anonymous No.11724327]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11724334]

>>11722774
God is a circle.

[Anonymous No.11724456]

>>11722058
I was that guy. I recommend Ouspensky’s In Search of the Miraculous. I’ve determined from a lot of study that he is heavily Sufi in origin, who themselves incorporated Tibetan Buddhist and Gnostic and Neoplatonic teachings, and these may all themselves somehow genuinely come from some primordial tradition of the self-regeneration of mankind put as myths and symbols into various religions by initiates as Gurdjieff posited... you can equally read in Plato and in Attar of Nishapur, 12th century Sufi poet, esoteric allegories about the fragmented state of the human personality which needs to be overseen by a created observing self placed at the helm, as in Gurdjieff’s system where self-observation and “self-remembering” create a new conscious self to order our disordered and sleeping faculties.... Suggesting some mysterious tradition of esoteric psychology consistent to such widely apart figures of seemingly different traditions...

[Anonymous No.11724476]

>>11722921
>soundcloud rapper
the fuck do you take me 4

[Anonymous No.11724490]

Like WOAH

[Anonymous No.11724496]

>>11724456
ya this idea of "created observing self placed at the helm" is pretty resonant with me and what I'm trying to tease out with this weird confluence of kant's apperception, the atman, formal necessity of the hegelian dialectic, etc. how what saves us is also the very condition of our ignorance (of it), it's all really fascinating

[Anonymous No.11724503]

>>11724456
>>11722058
And, oh yeah, the reason I’m so interested in what you think of Gurdjieff is you say stuff similar to him, although he says stuff similar to the perennial philosophy — his method is, as you say, like the Buddhist detaching from temporary phenomenal different selves. Sufism has similar practices and so did early esoteric/Gnostic Christianity as taught by Jesus. You can read about the methods of self-observation in the Gospels and Christ’s parables: “Watch, for ye know not the day and hour”; “If the houseowner was not asleep the thief would not have come in and stolen his goods.” Youre smart, you’ll get the symbolism if you study Ouspensky and gurdjieff and then the Gospels

[Anonymous No.11724527]

>>11724503
I kinda wanna dive into the Beelzebub material instead of what I feel will be (mostly) a retreat of ideas I'm already familiar with. The words in Beelzebub kinda hover right on that cusp of dream-like comprehension that is sometimes better than reading rigorous phil, you got a glossary or an advanced introduction anywhere?

[Anonymous No.11724545]

Gurdjieff is a charlatan, stop talking about his bullshit ideas.

[Anonymous No.11724617]

>>11724527
>glossary or an advanced introduction
That would defeat the purpose of the book, sadly.

>>11724545
Have you studied Gnosticism/early Christianity, Sufism, Buddhism, and Neoplatonism and can you see the points of contact between these systems and Gurdjieff’s system? Or have you simply heard that he drank and had sex with lots of women and yelled at his disciples?

[Anonymous No.11724628]

>>11724527
>>11724617
Also, you’ll definitely get a lot in Ouspnesky’s ISOTM you won’t find elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.11724638]

>>11724617
>Have you studied Gnosticism/early Christianity, Sufism, Buddhism, and Neoplatonism and can you see the points of contact between these systems
Yes.

>he drank and had sex with lots of women and yelled at his disciples
In other words, he was a shit-tier guru and poor excuse for a morally aware human. Also yes.

[Anonymous No.11724668]

>>11724617
all right fair enough ill do so of my own digging, thanks gurdjieffanon. I like how we all have our pet thinkers but keep coming back to the same principles

[Anonymous No.11724671]

>>11724638
>Yes.
Bullshit, then you’d see that his philosophy/system is much more important than the man himself and you need to separate his behavior from what he taught.

>In other words, he was a shit-tier guru and poor excuse for a morally aware human. Also yes
There’s things a bit more important than conventional morality.

[Anonymous No.11724689]

>>11724668
Ok, sorry for the seeming harshness. I agree, the existence of the perennial philosophy is a continuous shock to me still, when I see the fundamental principles reiterated from different angles in different systems. Others live in the Tower of Babel but it’s in higher mystical truths that we can begin to speak in tongues, to understand everyone else’s language as described as a miracle in the Acts of the Apostles. The higher (or more inward) you go, the more you approach unity. This will sound corny or insane to those who don’t understand..

[Anonymous No.11724702]

>>11724689
>This will sound corny or insane to those who don’t understand..

im not some spiritual elect but the more and more people who call threads like these drivel or word salad and it's like okay, there really is some kind of difference operative here and I don't know what. i wanna say it's just difference in years spent studying vs. not to give them the benefit of the doubt

[Anonymous No.11724729]

>>11724671
please don't take this as ad hominem, but you exemplify those traits i object in his followers. gurdjieff's is a dumb cult of personality, where defending the man is more important than the teachings (which, in this case, are braindead anyway).

carry on with your silly enneagrams and fantasy i guess. you'd be better served picking an alignment-ethos out of a D&D book though.

[Anonymous No.11724744]

>>11724702
There is a difference between those with a belief that there must be something above, beyond, or outside ordinary life, and those who don’t have this belief. It’s not even a question of morality but simply of a proper sensing of reality. This capacity could be called, as literally and psychologically as possible, “greater potential for flexibility of mind.” This capacity is described by Jesus as “Seek, and ye shall find.” It also is seen in his constant injunctions that most of humanity is asleep and that they must awaken. The proper response to those who are not merely asleep, who do not have this capacity for flexibility of mind asleep but actually dead, is, as Jesus said, to “Let the dead bury their dead.” Dead people with dead thoughts, not letting anything new enter in.

[Anonymous No.11724760]

>>11724689
>This will sound corny or insane to those who don’t understand..

>This doesn't make sense therefore it's understood and valued only by the wise.

Real good philosophy there.

[Anonymous No.11724766]

>>11724729
Funny, Jung’s psychological system was almost the same as Gurdjieff’s psychological system. By studying psychology and religions, they came to the same ideas, just from different angles. Of course, you’ll never find this out. I’ve studied Gurdjieff in depth and Jung to a lesser degree in depth but can confidently say this. You haven’t studied Gurdjieff in depth thus cannot.

[Anonymous No.11724812]

>>11724766
enjoy your air, food, and impressions. and personality diagrams and tests. dummy.

should've joined scientology. at least that could help get you a job in LA.

[Anonymous No.11724863]

>>11724812
Personality diagrams and tests — that’s an irrelevant addition added by the non-entity Oscar Ichazo.

Jung and Gurdjieff’s similarity of psychological system: Ouspensky describes being given a detailed psychological system by Gurdjieff in the 1910s which mirrored Jung’s, which they arrived at independently. Ouspensky never studied or mentioned Jung in his life so far as I know, nor did Gurdjieff. These similarities include:

>humans have a social mask they present to society, conditioned into them from childhood up, covering up a true self (Jung’s persona, Gurdjieff’s personality)
>we are really a plurality of selves, a multiplicity, and must order this into one self; we are not inherently self-conscious, inherently integrated, inherently aware of how subconscious most of what we do is; the remedy is self-knowledge (Jung’s individuation and integration of the shadow, Gurdjieff’s “work on oneself” and formation of a permanent observing self)
>people have psychological types and can be split into different sides of their being, and we need to balance these sides (Gurdjieff splits it into intellectual, emotional, and physical; Jung into sensing, intuiting, feeling, and thinking; both agree people are often biased towards one of these categories, and that individuation should properly involve balancing all these parts)
>ancient myths and religions are symbolical representations of this path of psychological self-development; these systems are often similar because they are created by identical higher faculties in mankind (Jung: the collective unconscious, the myth-making capacity of man, the archetypes; Gurdjieff: man also has “higher emotional center” and “higher intellectual center” dormant in him, responsible for mystical experiences, these centers speak in terms of symbols, allegories, myths, fables, etc because this can better represent nonlinear holistic truths because the wordmaking capacity of our lower intellectual center is too limited for it)

Do you need more? Jung, while discounting Gurdjieff, agreed with him on a great deal.

[Anonymous No.11724917]

>>11721003
>people change without realizing it
woah im enlightened anon

[Anonymous No.11724928]

>>11724917
Lol huh? No.

[Anonymous No.11725347]

>>11724863
Anyone wish to refute this? If you want to use the wisdom of Jung to refute Gurdjieff, it’s not quite so easy once you see how much Gurdjieff and Jung agreed on. They also agreed on man’s tendency towards psychological androgyny and the necessity of balancing opposing forces in ourselves, for instance. Jung’s enantiodromia can be found in Gurdjieff’s expositions of his Law of Three (active, passive, and neutralizing, how these forces work together and switch places and transform into each other and so on).

What’s the similarity? Well, they were both heavily influenced by the Gnostics. You could even call them both Gnostics and it wouldn’t be a controversial or entirely wrong statement.

[Anonymous No.11725408]

>>11725347
And, one more thing, Taoism is also another system Gurdjieff and Jung both evidently studied and which give rise to some of their similarities. Do you see a little bit now why it’s harder to discount Gurdjieff’s system entirely simply based on his personality and actions? Even if he acted eccentrically, he evidently brought a remarkable system of teaching to the West which can make sense of and throw light on many other systems and facets of human thought.