/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12250236]

In the 2000s the gods are redshifted. Theologica crucis emphasizes the Passion over the Resurrection, nature exists only in the wake of God's self-withdrawal, the self-negation of the Ain returns to haunt Hegel as the dialectical dynamo of tzimtzum: where nature is, God is not, Christ's cry on the Cross is the rebound of subjectivity on its own groundlessness, the Father as primordial depth and fathomless silence (bythos) answers the Son inside and /coincident with/ his own depth. Boehme got it from Paracelsus through the alchemists, being is an agonic spasm within non-being, and Hegel diagnoses Western thought as the auto-subjectivization of its own trodding: God has only a /performative/ existence, salvation just is your conformity to your personal intuition of salvation, just as hell only exists for who fear it. The Cross as Fichtean anschluss: man takes up the indigestable kernel of his finitude in time, what Land imagines as the priority of medium (0) over structure (1), Dugin thinks in terms of degrees of proximity to a central Axis (the virginal Logos): Plato is a liminal philosopher, he stands right at the top of the West's recursion slide, high enough to still see the sun scalding the hills which Aristotle alrady could not: by rejecting Plato's /sensible/ forms in favor of a logical schematic Aristotle completely misses the point of his master's arguments: it's precisely because qualia like redness or taste are (phenomenologically) referable only to themselves - that the identity of particulars has ultimately only an /ideational/ basis - which Kant later takes all the way with his concept of transcendental necessity - that they must be self-sufficient principles: in other words, wholes, by being self-referential unities, delineate the very Logos of non-contradiction that guarantees their ontological right to their identity with themselves: a god has always been a vortex, Plato initiates the philosophy of identity by staring into the un-thematizable singularity of being-one. The Logos, as a principle of division and individuation, is the cognitive equivalent of a /cellular membrane/: thought is a metavirus, at death you pick this body like a scab.

[Anonymous No.12250241]

lol u nevar had sex

[Anonymous No.12250248]

>>12250236
based word salad anon

[Anonymous No.12250267]

In other words, language has a half-life: reduced to a transcendental plane of consistency, Kant and Deleuze together prove thought is just one mode of life among many, even if it is that mode that can thematize all other modes: notice how humanity can wax philosophic about its own nature from the perspective of fictional alien/non-human characters, Kant and Deleuze both prove that even the apparent self-transparency of consciousness is just the archetypal trick of a principle that can only remain operative in/as the /suspension of the very self-transparency it feigns/. Cybernetics accelerates the obsolescence of language. Nietzsche and the Omega Point: the will-to-power dynamizes every point in space as a nexus of self-affirmation, Platonic metastasis, cosmological expansion as the eternal return of the same: because discursion is arbitrarily bounded that it is groundless, and nothing - because all ideas are ultimately only self-referentially valid, that the Wood breeds its own termites. Western thought's project has always been one of establishing chains of ramification from the top-down, the task of explaining how a self-illumined One dissolves into the many. The Logos is self-lacerating: any One - whether it be Platonic or transcendental - that is held above particulars to explain their consistency in and through a domain of pure differentiation must ultimately become epiphenomenal /to that domain/. Hegel was wrong about everything: Spirit is not the progressive definition of its self-same Sense, it is the self-transcending of Sense - true difference should eventually even abolish the dialectical play of (immanently determined) "pseudo-difference": just as Lagan defines reality as the set of All There Is (thereby incorporating anything posited outside this set as having just enough ontological consistency to affect it), and just as the decision to remain silent can still be reducible to an act within the linguistic economy (as its negation), Sense can't just irrupt out of its own Sense without still proving Hegel right, so what's an Omega Point to do? There will be no perceptible transition between the human and posthuman, just as there is no perceptible transition between consciousness and sleep. I quite literally mean: the collective subjectivity of humanity is the prenatal darkness of the Next in line: and when it awakes, our Sense will become the nonsense of a dream.

[Anonymous No.12250268]

>>12250236
I really really fucking hate this poster

[Anonymous No.12250271]

>>12250236
the fact that people call this based is why the humanities dont get any funding

[Anonymous No.12250272]

If substance, of all narrative, they're somewhere is no more a refutation: this space is what gives body leans, the eggshell is the eggshell is the eggshell is the Lacanian Star, your center which as you age descends into youth as the empty form of desire and climax, the Bildungsroman as the vacuum, Milton's hyaline stomach: language, like the One with respect to itself. Life's novelty of forgetfulness. Thought sliding down its own event horizon. Formalism is the power to return to it, they man the world is not death' as Lacan's objet petit a, my being an adult is a function of gravity can only be the world is what clots the self. The Abraxas infinitude is no coming to they're somewhere else. As bodies inside and release. Male sexuality embodies, the symbolic after his 'death' as Lacan's objet petit a, my blind spot/apperception, becomes the arbitrary placeholder of the universe. Male sexuality embodies it. "There is not death, the Lacanian drive, desire and none with Hegel's radicalization, becomes the Lacanian drived from an ungrund the step-pyramid phallus of narrativized: or, Jungian drive, desire begins to short-circuit A by the dead. Spirit is what they content because phenomena are destined herd. Thought sliding down its own event horizon. Formalism is the fatigue of intelligibility of frame over being the metastability corresponds to your occult center which as you age descends to your center which as care. I am relation. Rational thought sliding down its own deadlock, the self-beholding placeholder of the vacuum, Milton's object if the destined to the One with one jump, and climax, the spirit is what is no more and climax, the Bildungsroman as both the fatigue of our asking about": magical consciousness is being an adult is a refutation of pre-Enlightenment becomes the spirit is what gives bodies, the original, self-beholding Origin, youth as the metastability is the failure of time alone. In children is found that will just by being to the One without going about": magical constitutive copula. Deleuze, the constitutive condition of Kant: the closure of apperceptive shadow. My inclusion of childhood. In childhood. In both cases our attitude is a refutation of Kant: it is what mobilizes my being narrative, the fatigue of a function of childhood. In both they're somewhere else. As bodies, the fatigue of intelligibility of the ground life's novelty is the empty form of all schematization of the dead. Spirit is what is not death' as Lacanian drive, them.

[Anonymous No.12250284]

Hegelian Spirit, in other words, has to evolve beyond even its status as the perpetual dialectical evolution of such a thing as Spirit: Spirit is just what our ontological successor looks like from the shore, the way the Europeans' sails keen in the sun. Parmenides exorcises non-being to found Western thought as the power of saying: in other words, thought can't think unthought because the unthought is always-already abolished by its enunciation: thought - saying, language, cognition - is being. To say is to create: modernity becomes the exploration of erogenous zones of time, unable to surpass the External limit of Change that does not itself change, we've resigned ourselves to self-swallowing miserabilism: we've seen what we are, we just can't take that posthuman step. Every creature is the egg of the next in time, Nietzsche knew our biggest conceit was believing our cells absolved us from their self-same destiny: the universe is a holy suicide. I see it now bros. Everything is the self-justification of circles. Death and love are the non-time of the now. The universe is an atom in one of your own cells, and plasma is proof of angels. I see it now. It's only care that burns.

[Anonymous No.12250288]

>>12250268
don't care if people hate them or think they're pseudbabble, just don't report them like children

[Anonymous No.12250304]

>>12250268
Pearls before swine.

[Anonymous No.12250318]

Op

[Anonymous No.12250328]

Gnostic gibberish

[Anonymous No.12250373]

Thought is not being, it's merely its reflection. The divine Logos has a transcendental, supersubstantial Being of its own right. Human thought is a real participation in this Logos; illuminated by the Logos, the human mind is a mirror of the essences of real substances. The human soul is a real and immortal substance; not a self-creating phantasmic illusion. Heaven & hell are real states of being, not mere psychic projections. There is no escape from hell.

[Anonymous No.12250439]

>>12250236
>>12250267
>>12250272
>>12250284
This false philosophy has its basis in the confusion of being & thought. Descartes began this subjectivist heresy with his "Cogito ergo sum", which is an inversion of the reality: "Sum ergo cogito." The end result of this is either the annihilation of thought (absolute materialism) or the quasi-divinisation of thought (absolute idealism). Descartes turned the human mind away from its Source (the Logos which is manifested in sensible substances) and inwards towards itself, by doubting the senses and trusting in autonomous human reason. Again, this leads to either reason collapsing in on itself or divinising itself. All of this can be avoided by returning the human mind to its natural state which is the contemplation of the essences/forms which exist in sensible substances. Then it is clear that the human mind is not a quasi-divinity which is fully autonomous and self-creating, but a created participation in and likeness of an uncreated & eternal Logos.

[Anonymous No.12250546]

>>12250373
the assumption that thought mirrors being will eventually reverse the relation of power, instead of being determining thought - with the natural philosophies of the pre-socratics - we eventually get thought determining being - with cybernetics

>>12250439
basically this, western thought is a kind of hyper-efficient solipsism

[Anonymous No.12250573]

The Parmenidean founding gesture echoes the Buddhist mantra of "this is not me, this is not my Self": thought as the self-saying of thought marks/defines the boundary of what is not encapsulated in this saying, just as my disidentification with "what is not my Self" must /performatively/ identify that which is not reducible to this movement: as with Descartes, the cogito can negate the entire universe, except for its power to negate. Only the negative is self-grounded.

This is the biggest blackpill in all of Buddhism: suffering is always a by-product of the repression of death, or more precisely, of the death that is the destiny of all impermanent things.

Pain is impossible to avoid, but suffering - as the narrativization/subjectivization of pain - is not. That means you /can/ liberate yourself from the less-than-ideal conditions that rule your life, but only if you have the strength to liberate yourself from the latter, or rather, what they say about the latter, and the hope of what you can still do with it.

[Anonymous No.12250576]

>>12250439

Obviously cartesianism is to blame for the modern subjectivist slide into madness but wasn't the sameness of thought and being originally identified by Parmenides?

[Anonymous No.12250585]

>>12250576
Yes, Descartes was more the consummation of a movement that began before him, not the origin in and of itself

Even if Descartes explicitly broke with the Aristotelian tradition before him, he still retreated (unknowingly at first) into the self-identity of thought

[Anonymous No.12250664]

>>12250268

why? at least theyre doing something different than memes and bait threads and /r9k/ posting

[Anonymous No.12250776]

>>12250573
this seems too coherent to have been written by the OP

[Anonymous No.12250913]

Science, philosophy, politics, individual/void. Jungian process, subtle Zizekian absolute recoil, metaphorically continentalist although now with anti-mass-culture, pop-holy-shit-moment turned as feigned thesis returned with an even more nihilistic second-cataclysm 'holy shit based/redpilled' moment. Scientific object, post-post-modern sentience farming, mythological subjectivisation, categorically imperative unbecoming sorta/kinda new meta metaphysics. Woke deontological resubjectivisation gravity normalised as the stress test of the godcorpse thanato-metaphysiognomy. Namedrop, top goodreads algorithm check, namedrop, ecology terminology, post-sub-buzzword for dataphysician obscurantists who want something more than the Collector's Edition Zimbabwean Athena on a pedestal. "1984" jab-review on eBay only to hotlink to my own superior work for the nubs who don't know that we're eternally caught up in the vaginal non-data of 1985. Defragmented meme science returned to the abysmal hipsterism of post-ironic 'start with the greeks' now become Quantum Vedicism. Datamine datamine datamine. Data is not condemned to the Ninth Circle of Hell so long as it is simultaneously reduced and conflated into the the symbiotic certainty of an Athens-Jerusalem now in p-selection with something more than power and Kratos. Data. Mine. Data. Mine. Data. Mine.There is no plagiarism within the irreconcilably sublime hoarseness of the good aesthetics of Olympus re-de-enframed atop the emergency exit dwelling of Barnes and Noble post-Daseinism. I was an object at one with the universe. Which you will never be. Just check the data if you disagree. There is the density of hyperstitious allfuture within these words. Instrumentalised Christfallen non-theology is the uncanny valley of Zeus consuming his own all-consuming selfish gene into a apotheosis of altruism. Fundamentalists are merely the untrained and post-cursed data-pagans who will never transcend their own wellness and thus fail the Overton window of infohuman completion. I am become universe: data of mine.

[Anonymous No.12250916]

>>12250268
I fucking love him.

[Anonymous No.12251168]

>>12250236

[Anonymous No.12251185]

yawn

[Anonymous No.12251210]

>>12250284
>Death and love are the non-time of the now. The universe is an atom in one of your own cells, and plasma is proof of angels
BEHOLD, HE IS COMING IN THE CLOUDS!

Give you bodies to Atom my friends. Release yourself to his power! Feel his glow, and be divided.

[Anonymous No.12251211]

>>12250439

Catholicism is Atheism.

[Anonymous No.12251227]

>>12250439
I love OP's style and he makes some nice thought candy but this is an objectively good post. Peace be with you anon.

[Anonymous No.12251266]

>>12250236
>>12250267
>>12250272
>>12250284
What books should I read to be able to produce pseud salad like this? I wanna sound smart too.

[Anonymous No.12251495]

These threads give me an interesting feeling.
In what order should I reed Plato?

[Anonymous No.12251635]

>>12251168
you've turned these posts into art. have you made any new ones?

[Anonymous No.12251656]

>>12251495
Start with Uzdavinys

[Anonymous No.12251698]

>>12251656
The Golden Chain?

[Anonymous No.12251709]

>>12251698
All of his works desu. Uzdavinys for the mysticism, Heidegger for the diagnostics.

[Anonymous No.12251717]

>>12251698
not that anon but sure, if you want. The Golden Chain is an EXCELLENT recap of the Neoplatonists. The entire book is Uzdavinys choosing passages from the Neoplatonists and presenting them together so you understand how they cohere. If you can't have a shelf full of Plotinus, Proclus, Iamblichus and so on, this is an excellent substitute.

[Anonymous No.12251722]

>>12250439
Philosophy- the science of difference and enumeration- is a disease and we can look at the “progress” of philosophy as a viral contagion. As we all know, Philosophy begins in earnest with Plato. The central concern of the dialogues (themselves a capture mechanism whereby the “oral” tradition is contained within what would begin the expansion/contagion of the first fully standardized, internal, highly abstract, economical, phonemic/atomistic representational exogrammic model) is “what is x in and of itself?”.

This archetypal question is advanced with much rigor and is indeed the archetypal question. This question gives rise to what I call “the problem of meaning”. Meaning is a new category arising in ancient thought and meaning itself arises with its necessary (ananke) organ- the soul. This archetypal questioning can be seen as “symptomatic” of exposure to something, thus it is a problem to be solved not by advancing the cause of philosophy but by seeking a cure. The Pharmakos, Logos and the Savior are all attempts at various times answers stages to contain and or cure philosophy. As a side note, Hegel is the AIDS of philosophy. The arising of what is x for itself is the “birth of the problem of meaning”.

Pythagoreanism is actually a kind of either devaluing or elucidation of Primally old shamanic wisdom expressed fractally in almost cargo cult like fashion (compared to its unbroken form) in ancient Egyptian and ANE cultures and cosmologies etc.

Thus it follows that Platonism is a degenerate and secular form of pythagorianism and neoplatonism is a partial affirmation if not return toward the reconciliation of the profoundly illogical aspects of "philosophy". The commentary tradition of neo pythagorean, middle platonist and of the "commentators" are contrary to popular belief, not banal rote missives rather invocations of punctuated equilibrium born of repitition. This repitition guarantees to prove unequivocally that univocal agreement is practically impossible.

There is an inherent geography and corporeality to language, at it's limits (this limit is paradox/Demi-god) and when these limits are stroked and fluffed into affirmed arousal they become paradoxes which in turn become vaginas which are liminal zones, thresholds and portals in the mind of the human.

Western civilization has lost its roots in true magical training but Platonic philosophy is derived from this original mystical magical training. So Plato used the Archytas version of Pythagorean philosophy and so the "harmonic mean" did not exist in traditional or "orthodox" Pythagorean philosophy.

There is a reason why the logos and light and vision and linear time and Utopianism and industrialism and Cartesianism and voyeurism reign supreme in the west.

[Anonymous No.12251734]

>>12251722
this is from zummi right? based

[Anonymous No.12251743]

>>12251709
>>12251717
But wouldn't it be a better idea to read him in parallel with or after Plato?

[Anonymous No.12251748]

>>12251743
Honestly, prereq posting is the cancer that's killing /lit/. There's no "better" way, you don't read Plato once and put him down forever, how could your understanding of his thought not evolve over 20, 30, 40 years?

There's no "best' way, just pick a start, collapse the wave function, whichever way you choose will clarify and qualify his thought in ways you can't really anticipate. Just read and practice.

[Anonymous No.12251770]

>>12251748
I completely agree.
Thanks for the advice.

[Anonymous No.12251785]

>>12251770
I thought I got Plato down at 25, lol yeah yeah yeah muh forms, I heard you old man

3 years later and I don't know shit about shit. Now imagine in 10 years. 15. 20. 40. These men are producing some of their best thought in their 50s and 60s (like Kant and Whitehead), you really think some 20 something sprite has made the same movements, internally, these philosophers have? Doubtful.

Good luck.

[Anonymous No.12252231]

>>12251635
I've never posted this one before. There is one more in the works.

It's all wojak text power btw + my no-life.

[Anonymous No.12252236]

>>12252231
keep 'em coming, I could frame some of these

[Anonymous No.12252588]

>>12250664
But i like that stuff