/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12457780]

WHITEHEAD'S GOD IS THE APPETITION OF SAMSARA: a void of potential's hunger for actuality, concretion, the eternal "evocation" and exhaustion of intensities, objective immortality as the fertilizer of cosmic epochs: as a concrescence I "prehend" the data of the past as the content of the immediacy of my present, in other words, there can be no subjective immediacy /now/ without that which is not subjective and which is not immediate in principle: the past is objectification. I'm never really reacting to another's behavior from the inside, but only as that behavior in an objective mode: feelings in Whitehead are the transition from the past to the subjectivity of the present: the present IS the subject: not a self-grounding cogito but a spatiotemporal continuum, and what that means is we must think the transcendental consciousness in Kant just as conditioned by a network of relations as everything else: a subject is simultaneously transcendent to and inextricable from the past to which it owes its being, the present is not whisked causa sui out of the aether, the present is nothing else but the continuous, novel re-constitution of the past, what is properly self-creating in the subject is not his consciousness but his particular prehensional calculus that continuously presupposes (and is presupposed by) the construction of his consciousness in time and AS time: when it goes, I go: death is the central axiom of relationality: insofar as processes are movements towards their own extinction, the "draining" of their immediacy is itself the condition of their being "taken up" by subsequent generations: objectification-as-death is the a priori condition of Indra's Net. ETERNAL OBJECTS ARE ARCHONS: there is first the movement towards some determination, and then there is its OCCASION in my interiority, my reflexive awareness of x AS x, but the more invisible this distinction becomes, the more I am identified with my aim towards this eternal object - indistinguishable, in other words, from this eternal object's aim /towards itself/: which is why at death the singularities I am pledged to re-absorb "me": PHILOSOPHY IS THE NEGATION OF VORTICES: this distinction is analogous to what David Clark calls the performative and constative distinction in language: the true dyad is the (internal) marking of the One /as/ One: to use Clark's very concrete example here: a declaration of independence enacts the very freedom it exists to officially recognize, in other words, it is the noncoincidence between the mark and the blank that it not only presupposes, but retroactively presupposes IT: the present is always the taking up of some past "form of definiteness" the immediacy of which is /the present itself/: Christ's cry on the Cross is in fact this performative distinction as it can only be deployed on the Cross, ie in the zero-point of suffering: the cry enacts the very (standard of) Love it itself grieves the absence of: God is the (self-)registration of the void.

[Anonymous No.12457788]

kys

[Anonymous No.12457792]

To continue: we have to side against the gnostics here, matter does not introduce evil into the universe, spirit does: spirit, consciousness, the power to negate brute immediacy, redouble appearances, and elevate means to ends: SPIRIT IS THE NEGATIVE SPACE CONSTITUTING IDENTITY, AND THEREFORE THE IDEALITY OF THE ARCHONS: spirit is what makes man antecedent to his own saying, /is/ that antecedence: "I am man" posits this thing man not only as a self-enunciating being but as the self-enunciation OF being: spirit is what super-adds the = x of its stanchion onto organic drives: in other words, a reflexive awareness of the determinations I take up (the mark marking its very capacity to mark) is the ontological ground for both sin /and/ subjective immortality, for both fascination /and/ renunciation: like a torus, the kernel of fluency around which actual occasions cohere in time to constitute the process that I am has no existence outside this very circulation around a central kernel: the Ship of Theseus does not apply to subjectivity, not completely, that which is preserved through change cannot be empirically located precisely because it is /internally felt/: formal continuity is always - and can only be - guaranteed from the inside-out. This is what certain interpreters believe Whitehead means by God "being everywhere", and why I think he's basically a crypto-hermeticist: creator becomes creatura: God is everywhere because he is everything from the inside-out, he does not sit behind or above my locus but /alongside it/: OMNISCIENCE IS OMNI-INTERNALITY. If we deny the ontological priority of consciousness, what to make of the atma? The atma has never been the vulgar consciousness, but only consciousness insofar as it is perspectival ("Not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye can see"): all internality participates in the singularity of God, because to be on the inside /just is/ to be (ideally) singular, indivisible, formally one. And yet God must also be the ground of the past and its eternal "forms of definiteness": both the splintering into archons (singularities of determination) and the pleromic wellspring of subjective aims, the matrix of valuation in and through which I coordinate my selection/rejection of eternal forms, he is past AND present, that which ingresses into my organism according to its porosity to some form = x, /and/ the frame against which the multiplicity of these forms is integrated according to some conscious aim. In this way, feeling for Whitehead is just the experience of causality ON THE INSIDE: the vast majority of feelings are empty vectors, Gurdjieff's A influences: directional and yet /atelic/ intensities, in other words, they go from "here" to "there" just to exhaust themselves, no other purpose besides: "THEIR BECOMING IS THEIR PERISHING".

[Anonymous No.12457813]

Man is the corpus callosum of God, neither here nor there.

Those who cannot be validated cthonically compensate linguistically, intellectually. But this is not a refutation of the truths they know: inferiority both damns and guarantees its transcendence of the normative wavelength.

This is how it is. What will you do? Even your brain is an other, how to distinguish between a clone and an original when both are shareholders in the same mind? Simple, by /temporal priority/: by positionality, even a clone of myself would eventually diverge from me in behavior purely due to differences in /time and location/: you are nothing but the integrity of your skin, mysticism is the negation of everything that is not the shell, at death you're cracked open like a walnut and forced to relinquish your borrowed insides. But the pieces survive, star-embers for your next folly. Or deliverance. God cares for nothing but the beginnings of things, societies are secondary to this: the problem was never capital and technology, but our hedonic adaptation to capital and technology: food is densifying, celery is a cherub, nothing is real, but everything is reality, purify your life and mind and you will know angels, the dog whistle flutter of their wings. What am I saying? Only what Michelstaedter said about Socrates: scorning the gravity of the earth, longing for the sun, but being only human... he neither sank, rose, nor stayed where he was. Where did he go? The stones are silent.

[Anonymous No.12457820]

(((kys)))

[Anonymous No.12457824]

ty whitehead bro
recommended reading?

[Anonymous No.12457829]

>>12457824
Dr. Seuss

[Anonymous No.12457837]

>>12457824
Steven Shaviro's essay on Whitehead's God, Isabelle Stenger's Thinking With Whitehead, all of Donald Sherburne's articles on Whitehead here (http://www.anthonyflood.com/sherburne.htm)) which are very dense but very good, Donald's book on Whitehead you can grab on libgen, and this introduction to his terminology (http://ppquimby.com/alan/termin.htm)) for the lube.

[Anonymous No.12457841]

Philosophy was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.12457847]

(Subjectivised philosophy genre) is the (biological disorder) of the (biological object) with (implied theological meaning). (Subjectivised philosopher) is the (time-adjective) of its own (monotonous reiterated process). (Philosopher) (negative technologisation process) the (negative subjectivised philosopher with septic implications conflated) with the (non-argument assertion against non-argument): that (generic philosophical category) and (pseudo-metaphysical object) we are (even bigger time-adjective) (monotonous we-transcendence weism) and (on and on with binary/non-binary assertions of the input-blackbox-output machinational tik-tok-tinkering of time-object become human): (two philosophers together to avoid redundancy) now become (marxist-adjective to appear critical but with ancient-postprefix-become-word-of-its-own) become (philosophical category/cybernetic theory): (reiteration connector) (mind-object) is/is not (historical/nature connector), or (generic philosophical connector), (obscurantist real scotsmen) (made up word having sex with scary sounding word) which is the (redundant cybernetic word approaching absolute abstraction which is just another form of deabstraction and therefore life) (but let's keep going deeper) (ESOTERIC SOUNDING AXIOM WHICH SOUNDS COOL BECAUSE IT IS IRREFUTABLE BUT ONLY INSOFAR AS IT SAYS NOTHING): (Philosopher) applies the (scientific paradox) to (philosopher object-theory) thereby (time-reduction) it into (space-time paradoxical abstract metaphor) combined with (self-reducing metaphor with no need of expansive words): (#thegreatsfalltofallaciestoo) which is only only possible because (technological time-category-object), the (subject-Subject-itself) does not (transcendent Matrix reference) (with a twist), there is (something something somewhere vague connector words holy shit ethics words/could be moral): (philosophical object qua philosophical branch induction) (mathematical word) into (itself) as (mathematical word 2 = virtual mathematical world) (with a twist) emerging out of (negative medical category) between (biological philosophical category qua man qua (((huMAN)))) (hipster post-post-ironic word), (post-marxist category), (subdiurnal technophysics with invariant inflection of being) (qua human) (ironic(?) time-philosophy category) (apocalyptic words) (degeneration increasing as we approach the end) (multiple generic philosophical categories strung together) and now (romantic life-words-seemingly-free-of-all-world-weariness-word-categoriesism) conditions of (lif-word abstraction) and now its (negative (un)-life post-form) within the (abstracted abstraction): (Post-metaphysical-metaphysics category) is not (technical negation word), but the (second technical negation word) (add slashes here /input/):

[Anonymous No.12457849]

>>12457847
This again?

[Anonymous No.12457854]

(BOLD ::: BOLD)
(Supertechnological object) are (deabstracted human post-metaphor), but not (negative uncanny valley disassociative disorder of the squelchbox biology fleshword) which is the same as (cosmological squelchbox word): (Descartes reference here) (capital-sale-word to appear like I'm keeping up with my ironic negation): (subjects /postabstract form/) are still (relational physics reference for the reddit crowdmind) (or esoterically-infused-science-word-reference-submetaphor-postanalogy) (formal seriousness) that (time reference of the mobilised black box): I am not (theological reference), but (absolutely hegelian absolute reference with slashes to isolate and deisolate its being in the house of non-dasein positionality) (abstract subject-object-subject) are a (deabstracted object-subject-object) which can (/big science/theology/physics/philosophy syncretism word/) (movement reference) (globalist post-construction project) (don't forget the Vedic reference): (minute reference diffusing into) (psychological reference): (equate=equate=equate) (the gods THE GODS the gods damn you THE GODS) (physical abstraction growth word): (post-essence human actualisation abstraction) is what (biological function) (TIME TIME TIMEGOD MANGOD NATURE-MACHINEGOD NOW A BRIDE OF ABSTRACTION MINDPROCESS)!!! In (Philosopher-become-object) (TIME) (oneness) (mechanised theological-human-object): (reiteration) (HOLY SHIT LIFE IS DIFFICULT WHY CAN'T WE BE GODS) (Christian cosmological-cuckery is cool postmetaphor statement) in (random wikipedia philosopher): (true=scotsman= slippery=slope=man) can only) experience (time) as the (computer function) of (musical reference philosophogised) the (trans-time-god) (visual object) mathematical postadjective) of/that (biological process) into (TIME) becoming (WOAH TIME N SHIT) of becoming (the-object-become-time-in-itself): (don't worry the gods-become-microchips-become-me got this because WE ALL ONE N SHIT) (NONMATERIAL SPACE OH MY GOD NO!!!!!!!!!! word)(eternity) (eternity) (eternity) (THING) (THING) (THING) (=ME=) (=ME=) (=ME=).

[Anonymous No.12457868]

>>12457837
I thought it was you, from the other thread the other day.
I've been reading through some of Sherburne's articles. I have his companion, too. Anthony Flood's website has been kind of a trip, going through the other author's he's hosting. Read an essay on 9/11 by David Ray Griffin, the other editor of the corrected edition of PR. Didn't realize he was a truther. Had actually almost forgotten there was such a thing as a dissenting opinion from the commission, in spite of the 'jet fuel can't melt steel beams' meme ever recurring on here and everywhere else on the internet. Just noise now. Or maybe another campaign of thought control. Both, probably, as always.
What's your academic background? Or, how did you arrive at where you are now?

[Anonymous No.12457880]

>>12457813
>Even your brain is an other, how to distinguish between a clone and an original when both are shareholders in the same mind?

One does not meet with the distress caused by a series of hundreds of bodies, which has its origin. in a swoon due to the fever of desires if one places oneself under the treatment in which medicines are knowledge and dispassion, the causes of the destruction of the fever of desires. Oh my mind, you indulge in vain ideas like 'me' and 'mine.' Your efforts, according to others, are for one other than yourself. You have no consciousness of things and I have no desire of having anything. It is, therefore, proper for you to remain quiet. As I am no other than the Supreme Eternal One I am always contented and have no desires. Always contented I desire no welfare for myself, but I wish your welfare. Try to make yourself quiet, Oh mind. One who is by nature beyond the six continual waves is, according to the evidence of the Srutis, the Self of us and the universe. This is what I know from other sources of knowledge also. Your efforts are, therefore, all in vain.

There is no idea of difference left deluding people through wrong notions when you are merged. For the cause of all wrong notions is the perception of difference. These wrong notions vanish as soon as one is free from this perception. I am not deluded by your efforts. For I have known the Truth and am free from all bondage and change. I have no difference in the conditions preceding the knowledge of Truth and succeeding it. Your efforts, oh mind, are, therefore, useless. As I am eternal I am not otherwise. Transitoriness is due to the connection with changes. I am always self-effulgent and therefore without a second. It is ascertained that everything created is non-existent. Scrutinised through the reasoning that reality' is never destroyed and unreality never born you have no existence. You are, therefore, Oh my mind, non-existent in the Self. Having both birth and death you are accepted as non-existent.

[Anonymous No.12457886]

cringe

[Anonymous No.12457891]

>>12457868
Whitehead's has been a revelation, you'll enjoy him a lot, don't get intimidated by the language, it makes that strange gestalt sense really dense, technical language does when it has something to say, not like Deleuze, who I enjoy but is just so quintessentially French and impenetrable I can only take him in small doses. Also it's interesting Sherburne would disagree with God being omni-internal/omni-spatial, he has some good arguments against it that I don't feel I'm yet up to snuff to tackle.

And I don't have a background, I just read a lot.

[Anonymous No.12457899]

>>12457880
beautiful, where's this from?

[Anonymous No.12457911]

>>12457899
chapter 19 of Upadeśasāhasri

[Anonymous No.12457992]

>>12457911
Thanks, will read

[Anonymous No.12458006]

>>12457880
It's not that I witness my positionality, or my positionality is prior to witnessing (how could it be, really?), but positionality IS witnessing, which is where Whitehead and maybe Shankara would agree, but who knows

[Anonymous No.12458029]

:Whitehead's God is the nanoontology of the Xenogod's perspicaciousness fibrilliation of post-epistemological unbeing-becoming. For Zuangzi's Unknown Student the absolute IS the totality of the absolute .which is unknown. within the absolute's exosystem of /Oneness post-becoming-being/. Within the Whitehead God's aristocracy the globo-Vedic deontology of Spirit is the Logos become Pathos of the parasite become God's thanatoteleological analytic eschatology. Now as One. Within this totality of the internalised externality of the Absolute One becomes Whitehead, but of the Absolute-of-itself. Which is also the /versatile necrotization/ of perpetual recurrent Oneness without the Absolute, now as God's Whitehead:

[Anonymous No.12458032]

>>12457841
Where did you find this image?

[Anonymous No.12458554]

>>12458032
underground

[Anonymous No.12459287]

>>12458029
Laying it on way too thick.

[Anonymous No.12459295]

yawn

[Anonymous No.12459303]

>>12459295
Pfft you don't even read them

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.12459369]

i want all these on a book.

[Anonymous No.12459378]

>>12459369
The butterfly stamp of approval.
YIKES

[Anonymous No.12459412]

>>12459378
IF I READ YIKES ONE MORE TIME

[Anonymous No.12459509]

>>12459412
yikes

[Anonymous No.12459512]

>>12459412
YIKES

[Anonymous No.12459521]

>>12459378
>>12459509
>>12459512
yikesed and yikespilled

[Anonymous No.12459531]

>>12457837
Thank you

I think you may need some anchor point of emotional security if you're going to keep doing this shit. Even getting some basic exercise to keep yourself grounded

[Anonymous No.12459542]

>>12459531
Thanks fren

[Anonymous No.12459612]

>>12459542

Here since it's indian topicked so far
"My enduring these storms was a question of brute strength. Others have been shattered by them--Nietzsche, and Hölderlin, and many others...I was frequently so wrought up that I had to do certain yoga exercises in order to hold my emotions in check. But since it was my purpose to know what was going on within myself, I would do these exercises only until I had calmed myself to resume my work with the unconscious. As soon as I had the feeling that I was myself again, I abandoned this restraint upon the emotions and allowed the images and inner voices to speak afresh. The Indian, on the other hand, does yoga exercises in order to obliterate completely the multitude of psychic contents and images."

[Anonymous No.12459637]

>>12459612
interesting, whose this from? There got to be a point where even writing this stuff felt too slow, too clumsy, sooner or later I might have to take Carnap's advice, if you really want to communicate metaphysics, produce music or art, because language is just not equipped for it. and I only say that as some 4chan shitposter, I can't imagine what Nietzsche or Holderlin experienced

[Anonymous No.12459922]

>>12459637
Jung's memoir, "Memories Dreams Reflections"

[Anonymous No.12460099]

>>12458029
>perspicaciousness

Anglos ALWAYS oust themselves as illiterate when making fun of Philosophy by mixing words that are Semiotically "big" with words that are phonemically "big".

[Anonymous No.12460137]

>>12460099
v interesting bb pls psychologize more for us the moral decrepitude of the perfidious anglo

[Anonymous No.12460146]

>>12460099
Or maybe it's just a meme.

[Anonymous No.12460160]

>>12457780
>>12457792

Now THIS is a good one.

[Anonymous No.12460237]

>>12457780
>which is why at death the singularities I am pledged to re-absorb "me"

This is very revelatory of Resurrection. Jesus coming back to life would be a contractual clause or plot device had death been a negation or arresting of the Self, and he himself, as man, had been passive in death only to be acted upon by the Father. That he would choose to "return" despite being active in death and facing "transcendence" is truly triumphant.

[Anonymous No.12460545]

>>12457780
Anything that deviated from the Scholastics is shit and is where philosophy needs to pick up from. Enlightenment philosophy is incoherent and cancerous.

[Anonymous No.12461029]

>>12460545
>Scholastics
back to pol knuckledraggin scum.

[Anonymous No.12461112]

>>12459295
Pearls before swine.

[Anonymous No.12461257]

Modern Gnosticism is a mistake

[Anonymous No.12461394]

>>12460237
Interesting.

[Anonymous No.12462482]

bump

[Anonymous No.12462765]

>>12461257
What is it with Christians and handwaving away the positive reality of suffering and evil? Your religion was founded on the cross, I don't get it.

[Anonymous No.12462915]

>There is no character belonging to the actual apart from its exclusive determination by selected eternal objects. The definiteness of the actual arises from the exclusiveness of eternal objects in their function as determinants. If the actual entity be this, then by the nature of the case it is not that or that. The fact of incompatible alternatives is the ultimate fact in virtue of which there is definite character. A conceptual feeling is the feeling of an eternal object in respect to its general capacity as a determinant of character, including thereby its capacity of exclusiveness.

the demiurge and his archons are determination, and therefore exclusiveness, and therefore death. hth.

[Anonymous No.12463026]

>>12462915
is it death if it never was?

[Anonymous No.12463468]

>>12463026
Last one:

>death is the central axiom of relationality

>The organic philosophy does not hold that the ‘particular existents’ [i.e., actual entities] are prehended apart from universals [i.e., eternal objects]; on the contrary, it holds that they are prehended by the mediation of universals. In other words, each actuality is prehended by means of some element of its own definiteness.

[Anonymous No.12463568]

>>12457780
:BEEP BOOP: :BEEP BOOP: /Oneness/ :BEEP BOOP: :BEEP BOOP: /Transcendence/ :BEEP BOOP: :BEEP BOOP: /Street Shitter Ontology/ :BEEP BOOP: :BEEP BOOP: /Datamined opinions/ :BEEP BOOP: :BEEP BOOP: /Hipster epistemology/ :BEEP BOOP: :BEEP BOOP: /NEED MOAR DATA/ :BEEP BOOP: :BEEP BOOP: /COSMOS/ :BEEP BOOP: :BEEP BOOP: /TIMEGOD/ :BEEP BOOP: :BEEP BOOP:

[Anonymous No.12463581]

>>12463568
There was an attempt

[Anonymous No.12463718]

>>12463468
:^(

[Anonymous No.12464616]

>has this many thoughts about spiritual writers
meet u on the cushion

[Anonymous No.12464630]

>>12457854
this guy gets it
do you personally identify as a computer

[Anonymous No.12464774]

No one in this thread has escaped OP

[Anonymous No.12464801]

>>12464774
What does this even mean? Is Schizojak's God our post-ontological inescapism from our own God-parasite of void-oneness appetition?

[Anonymous No.12464829]

>>12464801
Stop, the only decent parodies were these

>>12457847
>>12457854

[Anonymous No.12464922]

>>12464829
Why can't you answer the question?

[Anonymous No.12464929]

>>12464922
it's a non-question

[Anonymous No.12464935]

>>12464922
Because the way you characterize these posts says much more about you than it does them

[Anonymous No.12465241]

>>12457780
I really don't know what spurs you to writing these, dear friend, but I love you nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.12465338]

>>12464935
Imagine believing this.

[Anonymous No.12465344]

>>12464929
Imagine believing this.

[Anonymous No.12465451]

>>12465338
You can only parody something you understand, that's the only way it could ever sting, that's why the other guy said no one itt has escaped OP, you can only truly mock something when you're beyond it. You're not beyond it.

[Anonymous No.12465566]

>>12465451
Okay then.
Except I'm the one who wrote the working parodies. But keep telling yourself that I don't understand, and that this Lvl. 99 Abstraction Paladin is saying something deep.
Anyone can make a pseudo-hegelian logical loop which is inescapable if it is abstract enough, but in the end nothing of value is said. And more importantly, there is nothing to engage with. It is the precise opposite of philosophy because it conflates pure abstraction with certainty.
So perhaps this means you're the one who just doesn't get it. You haven't escaped the parody, bruh.

[Anonymous No.12465592]

>>12465566
If you say so vOv

[Anonymous No.12465597]

>>12465566
is it girardfag tho

[Anonymous No.12465605]

>>12465597
No.

[Anonymous No.12465609]

>>12465605
gay

[Anonymous No.12465645]

>>12465592
See, you're just a faggot fanboy.

[Anonymous No.12465668]

>>12465645
So who are you swinging at? The OP? Or are you the OP?
Who is mocking whom? And for who? Hm?

[Anonymous No.12465699]

>>12465645
Prebased and fanatic-pilled.
https://youtu.be/p1a4kPwyZPo

[Anonymous No.12465706]

>>12465668
See those numbers? You can click them, but pro tip: they don't take you back to /rdt/.

[Anonymous No.12465739]

>>12465699
>>12465566
:Whitehead's Kek is the post-ontological heat death presupposed in these digits:

[Anonymous No.12465744]

>>12465706
This post (>>12457847)
And this post (>>12457854)
Are not in reply to any other post, including the OP.
I can make an inference from context and convention, that a 'free' post in any thread is implicitly a reply to the OP. However, I had also assumed that the above posts were products of the OP, so--
again,
Who are you?

[Anonymous No.12465811]

>>12465699
strangely thematic video for the thread

[Anonymous No.12465834]

>>12465811
How would this be strange?

[Anonymous No.12465904]

>>12465744
A ghost in the machine presupposed within a ghost in the machine larping presupposed as human post-Mongolian board.

[Anonymous No.12465916]

>>12465904
You prove yourself less and less clever with each post.

[Anonymous No.12466006]

>>12465916
>just fanboy opinions
How would you like me to answer a retarded question?

[Anonymous No.12466052]

>>12465916
>t. schizojak

[Anonymous No.12466091]

>>12466006
retardedly, obviously

[Anonymous No.12466135]

>>12465834
weg