On the Book of Job

[Anonymous No.18884286]

The most common idea about the premise of Job is totally opposite to the text itself. The text makes it explicit that there is no idyllic God-Job relation that Satan reactively interferes in. Who brings up Job? Who singles him out? Who puts him under the microscope? Who forces a tremendous volume of his own unwanted input onto him? GOD, not Satan. Job's obscene exceptionalism is proactively mentioned by God, not reactively questioned by Satan. Even the first, and second, question between God and Satan is asked by GOD, Job being the mere object, fetish, that God uses to "accuse" Satan. Accuse of what? Exactly.

>One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
>Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”
>Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”

The question of what does God want from Satan is hidden in plain sight, perfectly matches God's treatment of Job, the unwanted input, and is vital to the conclusion that God himself is the proactive accuser or adversary. The meaning of the text might be subsumed in this initial exchange. Perhaps even the interpretation that Satan is a lesser Evil alleviating the Demiurgic pathology by destroying the input is not radical enough. The Atheist idea of collaboration, usually, and in a case of tragic intellectual bankruptcy, ascribed to God and Satan at Job's expense, is tangentially relevant: perhaps it is Satan and Job collaborating at God's expense. Ignoring God's exhibitionist melodrama, Job being fooled by it (provided that this interpretation is correct) is understandable, the READER being fooled by its DESCRIPTION and suspending judgement of the subsequent text is pathetic; God replacing Job's goods and children is by far the most scandalous thing done to Job, this time without Satan's help. Job's exceptionalism is the very cause of the sadomasochist session in the first place, other than a terror even greater than the one of the "Satanic" torture and the one of the Divine torture pornography - the latter being by far the worse and, again, done by God without Satan's help - combined, what purpose could God's restoration have? Perhaps this is how Satan collaborates with Job: in destroying his goods and murdering his children, knowing that it will prompt God to replace them, Satan makes God unwittingly answer Job, even AFTER Job supposedly conceded to God, after God successfully accuses Job. The abysmal Demiurgic act is the concession that while God might be "Job-proof" and "Satan-proof", he is NOT "God-proof": his law and will are not mysterious by virtue of their legitimate incomprehensibility, but by virtue of their illegitimate incontinence, God cannot help himself.

[Anonymous No.18884292]

A solar eclipse, as it were, wherein Satan obscures God, allowing both Job and Satan to see the Black Sun - the true face, or anus, of God - from the bottom-up and top-down, respectively. This makes the question of Job's innocence very curious. Since he previously worshiped Yaldabaoth, does it make Job finally guilty, retroactively justifying his suffering? No. It is only after this guilty Job murders the previous innocent Job that Job is actually innocent. Though even this lesser point of his suffering being retroactively justified is tantalizing: Yaldabaoth explicitly says the Job is innocent prior to the sadomasochist session, it is wise to believe him for the simple reason that Yaldabaoth's satisfaction would have been greatly diminished had Job not been "a virgin". If Job is somehow guilty after the fact then, yes, Yaldabaoth enjoys a double victory. But if he is truly retroactively guilty then Yaldabaoth has played himself. Regardless, the main point of Job's guilt Dialectically making him truly innocent is that Job's innocence, the alleged innocence of the standard interpretations, is the only thing holding together Yaldabaoth's obscenity: all devices that intervene to stop one's realization of Monadic Evil in general, the silver lining or the collapse into "becoming", are as different phases of the same pathetic invertebrate organism, the adult and most repulsive phase of which is precisely Job's standard innocence. There is a kind of perverse Materialism at play whereby things' presence supersedes their meaning, i.e. one does not recoil from the text, as one should, because of the mere presence of this innocence, its presence obscuring its own meaning, just as, for example, the presence of the whole Phenomenal world obscures its own Evil. In accepting this innocence, Job effectively is the most guilty party, the full obscenity of the text would be revealed had Job been guilty. THIS is Yaldabaoth's last, and first, trump card. He proactively makes Job only Dialectically guilty, leaving his standard innocence intact so that he may all the better relish it in the sadomasochist session, so that it might be all the more perceived as righteous masturbation in light of the presence of Job's standard innocence. What is left for Job then if not to Dialectically claim his innocence by accepting standard guilt? Recall the initial exchange, what does God want from Satan? This accusation without an object, more awful than standard accusation, is finally answered by Job (Satan and Job are in an identical position, if not actual coincidence) in the final "I repent". What does he repent of? Exactly. Job drops the text on its head by this repentance without an object.

[Anonymous No.18884324]

Question to gnostics: why worship Abraxas, which unites good and evil into a single entity, if the point of gnosticism is the impossibility to reconcile good with evil, and the rejection of evil as a substance?

[Anonymous No.18884328]

>>18884324
>why worship Abraxas

I don't.

[Anonymous No.18884344]

>>18884328
Didn't most gnostic sects worship Abraxas though?

[Anonymous No.18884349]

>>18884344

I wouldn't know, I'm never with the crowd.

[Anonymous No.18884444]

>>18884349
I've been thinking about this lately. Is the logical conclusion of any true gnostic's path to forge his own metaphysical system based on his personal understanding and the information gathered during his research, instead of following an extant one?
Although, if you deliberately avoid "the crowd", can you really make any kind of meaningful spiritual progress?

[Anonymous No.18884754]

>>18884444

Yes.

[Anonymous No.18884872]

Based thread
What do gnostics have to say about love? I know some sects practiced sexual rituals but that's not what I'm talking about. Is true (romantic) love illusory, or an expression of good?

[Anonymous No.18884915]

>>18884444
>>18884754

For example, Zizek's The Monstrosity of Christ, quite frankly an uncharacteristically terrible piece, even here, his own conclusions are still unique and uniquely Gnostic.

[Anonymous No.18884926]

>>18884286
Why does everyone middle class and self insert as Job, and think Job begged his parental figure wrong and the parents are to blame and had Job been evil it would all be fine but no my self insert can't be evil because The Man is holding me back from my 90s dark action hero fantasy?
Do they make kids sit through a video on this or something?

[Anonymous No.18884927]

>>18884915
What's terrible about it? He's right about God being on trial

[Anonymous No.18884932]

>>18884872

Previously: >>/lit/thread/S18737969

[Anonymous No.18884938]

>>18884932
Are you the same guy who often recommends Laruelle and Sloterdijk?

[Anonymous No.18884968]

That was whole lot of words to say nothing at all.

[Anonymous No.18884991]

>>18884927

He claims to be doing a "Hegelian reading of Christianity" yet affirms radical natural Theology, both the Father and Son have "died" leaving the Ghost to operate within the Phenomenal world, Catholicism on steroids, or claims that God "is impotent". It's a mess. Sad.

[Anonymous No.18885000]

>>18884938

No.

[Anonymous No.18885085]

>>18885000
Which books helped you the most in your journey to construct your personal understanding of the world?

[Anonymous No.18885130]

>>18885085

Mostly John, I don't read...

[Anonymous No.18885142]

>>18885130
How did you get such an elaborate take as >>18884286 >>18884292 just from reading John, are you a prophet

[Anonymous No.18885168]

>>18885142

I just think.

[Anonymous No.18885177]

>>18885168
>I just think.

[Anonymous No.18885424]

>>18884444
>can you really make any kind of meaningful spiritual progress?
what exactly is 'spiritual progress'? always a good idea to reexamine foundation as it is getting lost in obviousness.
these recent gnostic threads had discussions, I noticed, that were quite open, in the sense of people communicating in good spirit. I believe it to be a manifestation of spiritual progress. those who evolved beyond basic cursed normie temper would naturally understand each other.
which reminds me of the noble Order of Rosicrucians, who, apparently, from what I have learned, was not a formal structure but level of understanding: noble memers with a noble cause. is it not a worthy and luminescent ideal? itself an instance of the primal monad of light.
>path to forge his own metaphysical system based on his personal understanding
to find the way to his own Monad (eternal know thyself) and to clear it from all heterenomous irradiation that causing delusion and leading astray.
>>18884292
>Job and Satan to see the Black Sun - the true face, or anus, of God
not the most fortunate comparison: backside is emitting refuse, i.e falsehood and 'second-hand'. while the true face is the face before the visible, so -- Aether. and satan, perhaps, a machine of dialectical synthesis binding this aether to a procession of world(ly) spirit.

[Anonymous No.18885432]

>>18884324
maybe evil IS dualism itself. which would explain why the ultimate god is called the monad. and the evils of this world do seem to be made out of back and forth dualisms. if you slow down the wave of the back and forth, you reach a straight line, which is nothing, which is transcendent.

but i dont think abraxas was the ultimate god in the gnostic mythos. and dualism and monism also make a dualism. it really is a (wave shaped) snake eating its on tail. how to get the tail out of our mouths and explore the desert i dont know. maybe stop waggling back and forth

[Anonymous No.18885465]

>>18885424
>what exactly is 'spiritual progress'?
I think you said it yourself:
>to find the way to his own Monad (eternal know thyself)
Temet nosce is the core of the spiritual path. In essence, all spiritual practices lead to self-actualization, it's the journey from the Fool to the World.
Putting that aside and in more practical terms, you can also say that spiritual progress is the set of techniques that will allow you to avoid having to be reborn in the pain matrix after your body dies. That is, a continuous personal praxis which you undergo in order to ensure that death becomes the door to the Pleroma.

[Anonymous No.18885549]

>>18885432
>maybe evil IS dualism itself. which would explain why the ultimate god is called the monad. and the evils of this world do seem to be made out of back and forth dualisms. if you slow down the wave of the back and forth, you reach a straight line, which is nothing, which is transcendent.
if this were true then absolutely everything within this universe is fundamentally inherently evil by the necessity of everything being predicated on the inherent wave nature of reality, and not just that, but everything is predicated on a PLURALITY of wave natures, because there are four different fundamental forces and within QM they all involve wave-particle duality.

meaning that everything in this universe doesn't just has evil as an additional property, but everything IS evil. there is nothing else for us to see but evil if we make this equivalence.
the E in e=mc^2 stands for evil

[Anonymous No.18885558]

'fuck a job might have to rob'

[Anonymous No.18885583]

>>18885549
>the E in e=mc^2 stands for evil
what 'mc' stands for?

[Anonymous No.18885628]

>>18885549
>everything within this universe is fundamentally inherently evil
Yes

[Anonymous No.18885715]

>>18884872
Bump

[Anonymous No.18885836]

>>18885549
>if this were true then absolutely everything within this universe is fundamentally inherently evil

Yes, major post about this coming "soon".

[Anonymous No.18885840]

>>18885836
How does this factor in the inner spark though

[Anonymous No.18885873]

>>18885840

I will elaborate therein.

[Anonymous No.18885989]

>>18885549
>wave-particle duality.
maybe the way to escape dualities is in part of the duality. but once you get to that part, you're out, and don't have to return. like waves are made out of dualities, but in the particle-wave duality, a particle isnt a duality anymore. and in the monism-dualism duality, monism is contained within a duality, but itself isnt a monality, so its a way out of dualities. maybe there is something there in the QM metaphor about "observing" or "zooming out of scale" that will help us get to a particle but im sure i would be misguided if i took it there

[Anonymous No.18886002]

>>18885549
>wave-particle duality.
maybe the way to escape dualities is in part of the duality. but once you get to that part, you're out of the duality. like waves are made out of dualities, but in the particle-wave duality, a particle isnt a duality. and in the monism-dualism duality, monism is contained within a duality, but it itself is monality, so its a way out of dualities. maybe there is something there in the QM metaphor about "observing" or "zooming out of scale" that will help us get to a particle (monality) but im sure i would be misguided if i took it there

[Anonymous No.18886014]

>>18885424
>these recent gnostic threads had discussions, I noticed, that were quite open, in the sense of people communicating in good spirit.
It's true, gnostic threads are among the most pleasant on /lit/, there's always interesting discussion.

[Anonymous No.18886079]

What I can't seem to figure out is if the false light, planet harvesting narrative is true or if it's just another dumb theory and not actually related to gnosticism. Any help?

[Anonymous No.18886576]

bump

[Anonymous No.18886626]

>>18884968
it says the real god of the bible isn´t yehovah but his law is the true GOD, yehovah puts himself in second place, basically making christianity redundant becuase he´s lying and that gnostics can be more self-assured that yehova=demiurge

[Anonymous No.18886831]

>>18886079
Would appreciate help on this
Some of the stuff I'm talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i2PgMu3DOo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4Ed40tVGOg

[Anonymous No.18886834]

>>18885583
well 'mc', as opposed to mc^2, would be the square root of all evil. or we could go a totally different direction and say "master of ceremonies"

>>18885628
>>18885836
based

>>18886002
>but in the particle-wave duality, a particle isnt a duality
so this is the interesting part, particles are confusing, do they even exist as a coherent concept without duality? i have no idea. strictly all particles have a wave nature. Norbert Weiner stated in Cybernetics,
>The conditions of the observation of a momentum and its corresponding position are incompatible. To observe the position of a system as precisely as possible, we must observe it with light or electron waves or similar means of high resolving power, or short wavelength. However, the light has a particle action depending on its frequency only, and to illuminate a body with high-frequency light means to subject it to a change in its momentum which increases with the frequency. On the other hand, it is low-frequency light that gives the minimum change in the momenta of the particles it illuminates, and this has not a sufficient resolving power to give a sharp indication of positions.

NOW HERE'S WHAT'S INTERESTING. Lucretius, 2000 years ago, about 50 BCE, predicted a sort of proto-QM-uncertainty, but he formulated it by working backwards and saying "ok lets assume we aren't just a collection of atoms moving in fixed trajectories. What then? His answer is bizarre, but correct, that there is a "swerve" built-in to the universe, that doesn't even allow the universe ITSELF to calculate its own trajectories. How does this relate? Well, from his formulation, wave-particle duality seems to the classic Christian answer to the problem of evil argument, that is,
>In order for you to have free will, evil is necessary. Waves are duality, duality is evil, but the evil is necessary for, at the very least, for you to think your will is potentially free, for whatever that means.

That is,
>The most celebrated part of this account, however, is at 2.216–93 (see extended textual discussion in Fowler 2002), where Lucretius maintains that not only to explain how atomic collisions can occur in the first place, but also to account for the evident fact of free will in the animal kingdom, it is necessary to postulate a minimal indeterminacy in the motions of atoms, an unpredictable ‘swerve’ (clinamen) ‘at no fixed place or time’. Otherwise we would all be automata, our motions determined by infinitely extended and unbreakable causal chains. A striking resemblance to the indeterminacy postulated by modern quantum physics—which has also often been invoked in debates about determinism—has helped make this passage the subject of particularly intense debate.
How's that for a fucking prediction?

[Anonymous No.18886907]

>>18884286
You just proved that interpreting scripture by yourself without the Church is dangerous and leads to heresy.

Go check out what Gregory the Great has to say in his “Moralia on Job”.
>1500 page commentary
Truly, truly I say unto you, so far no one did a better job on Job.

[Anonymous No.18886927]

>>18886907
>noooo stop thinking for yourself that's heresy
kek

[Anonymous No.18887307]

>>18886834
So he took free will as a given? Even if he was right, I don’t think that’s the right way of being right

[Anonymous No.18887783]

Bump

[Anonymous No.18887807]

>>18887307
>So he took free will as a given? Even if he was right, I don’t think that’s the right way of being right
Although intuitive, you would be wrong. In practice this is how perhaps every mathematical discovery has been made. Mathematicians will time and again ask "well, what if this ostensible nonsense were true, what would then happen?"

But don't take my word for it, here's Brad Osgood (from his Stanford lecture series, The Fourier Transform and its Applications), 41:00,
>Now, I'm serious about this, this is a very good first approach. When you try to apply mathematics to various problems you often have a question like this: is it possible to write something like this? If you ever find yourself saying: can I do something like this? Often the first step is to suppose you can and see what the consequences are, alright, then later on you can say maybe I should try this because it seems to be what has to happen. Then you go backwards. Mathematicians will never tell you this because they like to cover their tracks. They just go, "well it's obvious like this, and life is going to work out so simply, etc" but what they don't show you is that first step of saying: suppose the problem is solved, what has to happen?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rqJl7Rs6ps

Also because we know 2000 years later that he's right, that there is a fundamental indeterminacy to the universe, it doesn't make his original assumption necessarily true, but it is extremely curious that such a question could come up with such a bizarre solution, that the universe has a "swerve" feature built-in preventing any knowledge of the infinite causal chain.

[Anonymous No.18887833]

>>18884444
checked

[Anonymous No.18887849]

>>18887307
>>18887807
And what's even funnier is that Fourier Transforms are EXACTLY what I've been talking about here. Fourier transforms are the very mathematics of duality. Heisenberg uncertainty and wavelets, literally anything in the universe that has to do with waves, these are all applications of fourier transforms (which involves decomposing functions into their frequency domains, that is, more or less, sums of sines and cosines). These are the lecture notes to the Stanford course that talk about all of these: https://see.stanford.edu/materials/lsoftaee261/book-fall-07.pdf

[Anonymous No.18887888]

>>18886079
>>18886831
How is this not absolutely terrifying to you people? Holy fuck, is it all hopeless?

[Anonymous No.18888132]

bump

[Anonymous No.18888248]

>>18884915
Lol imagine reading anything from that greasy nose picking faggot. Trashed.

[Anonymous No.18888249]

dead thread, get bed, good night, all right

[Anonymous No.18888445]

>>18886834
>or we could go a totally different direction and say "master of ceremonies"
>'fuck Job might have to rob'
what did mean by this? truly, only by going 'a totally different direction' one can arrive in a place different than a totalized synthesis of the weltgeist
>for once, Hegel, was unnerved
that 'stupidity' is the monadic multiplicity: the Other of machinating rationalism.

[Anonymous No.18888989]

>>18886907
>You just proved that interpreting scripture by yourself without the Church is dangerous and leads to heresy.

[Anonymous No.18889059]

>>18888249
>dead thread
yes, but want to know why? because
>a machine of dialectical synthesis binding this aether to a procession of world(ly) spirit.
producing C L O S U R E. both parties engage, they fight for a moment then (heat) death and then
>'finally synthesis'
however, the Other-Beginning is
>>18886834
>we could go a totally different direction
the direction where it never reaches totality and ever escapes the Closure.
>Non-Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18889153]

>>18887888
Trips of despair

[Anonymous No.18889256]

>>18886907

What is the synopsis? Let me guess, u can't kno nothin LOL, cant haev good without badd my dudez XD, all yall lil lol pizza senpai imo?

[Anonymous No.18889318]

>>18889256
kek
>bro what if evil... doesn't actually exist... whoa

[Anonymous No.18889538]

Just got myself Jung's Seven Sermons, what am I in for?

[Anonymous No.18890242]

>>18889538

Not much, from what I've heard.

[Anonymous No.18890381]

>>18890242
I thought it was a great neognostic treatise

[Anonymous No.18891062]

bup

[Anonymous No.18891146]

>>18888445
>>18889059
>truly, only by going 'a totally different direction' one can arrive in a place different than a totalized synthesis of the weltgeist
>the direction where it never reaches totality and ever escapes the Closure.

>>18887807
>>18887849
>creates a whole self-contained metaphysics and cosmology more plausible than any mystic or esoteric system based on the simple axiom that duality is evil, solving the most important problem in religion, that of evil, using only Lucretius, Norbert Wiener, and a Stanford course on Fourier Transforms
>nobody cares

[Anonymous No.18891233]

>>18891146
>the simple axiom that duality is evil,
would you care to open that? I literally don't understand and get confused about the statement. to me duality is an indication towards a 'two-ness' of certain substance. so relating to the matter of religion it would be two opposing monads radiating contrary 'fields'/logoi. and as I can see it from observing this world, 'evil' is a meaningless value judgement if taken outside from a monadic discourse: one monad would view another monad as 'evil' and would be perfectly right about it. and vice versa.
couldn't the monadic multiplicity be accepted, so every monad would develop its own monadic atmosphere to live in it and leave others to do the same? thus the 'machine of dialectical synthesis binding this aether to a procession of world(ly) spirit' would be transcended by aware monads striving towards their own ideal realizations.

[Anonymous No.18891469]

>>18891233
>would you care to open that?
of course being an axiom, i can't analyze it (break it down further) other than justifying why i chose it in the first place. originally i got the idea because this post posited that perhaps dualism is evil, >>18885432 because of the Monad. you say,
>to me duality is an indication towards a 'two-ness' of certain substance. so relating to the matter of religion it would be two opposing monads radiating contrary 'fields'/logoi.
I agree, in control theory you generally study systems called "second-order systems", which is where the interesting stuff starts to happen because there can be no oscillation in first-order systems because there is no other energy storage element to swap energy back and forth. At its simplest, yea, two monads are required for duality. you say,
>and as I can see it from observing this world, 'evil' is a meaningless value judgement if taken outside from a monadic discourse: one monad would view another monad as 'evil' and would be perfectly right about it
100%, evil is meaningless outside a monadic discourse; you only get evil with dualism, exactly 'what' it is is for the soul of the world (william james term) to decide. thoughts?
>couldn't the monadic multiplicity be accepted, so every monad would develop its own monadic atmosphere to live in it and leave others to do the same?
this is a beautiful thought, tho' i'm having a hard time doing anything with it. if i don't preserve the thought exactly as is, it seems to snap in two: in my above metaphysics, and as Lucretius or Heisenberg roughly puts it, there is an inherent "swerve" to the universe, allowing us only to (at the very least) see duality (more on this in my norbert wiener quote above). i don't see how there can be anything to "accept" monadic multiplicity without splitting itself

> thus the 'machine of dialectical synthesis binding this aether to a procession of world(ly) spirit' would be transcended by aware monads striving towards their own ideal realizations.
elaborate on that first part, i'm new to these threads and don't normally read this sort of stuff. are you saying it's either/or? if there's not individual striving monads, there's a dialectical procession? i'd have to think about this more. i see dualisms with evil, i see pluralism, i don't see the procession (yet).

[Anonymous No.18891557]

>>18885168
What would you recommend to read besides John? Can you elaborate on the anal expulsive nature of God/incontinence metaphor that you mention in your second post?

[Anonymous No.18891573]

>>18884286
I partly agree. The central message is that God is sovereign and it's not the place of mortals to question Him.

[Anonymous No.18891582]

>>18891573
If not mortals, then whom? An impossible entity that cannot be described without the assistance of an exotic ontology? Some non-existent non-thing?

[Anonymous No.18891652]

>>18891557

Random Zizek books, articles (a nice selection https://www.lacan.com/frameziz.htm)), lectures to acquaint yourself with Dialectical thinking, Plato's Parmenides, Baudrillard's Fatal Strategies (the last chapter goes way off the rails about halfway through), Thomas and Philip, The Sophia of Jesus Christ, Pistis Sophia. Though, again, I don't think reading is that important. As far as my points about Theological scatology, previously:

>>>/lit/thread/S16585546
>>>/lit/thread/S17527604

I will further elaborate in the next post..."soon".

[Anonymous No.18891699]

Almost all of this thread is transparent samefaggotry.

[Anonymous No.18891735]

>>18884286
Imagine getting bullied into submission by this clown god.

[Anonymous No.18891845]

>>18891652
>As far as

Supposed to be "as for".

[Anonymous No.18891879]

>>18891699
meds: not taken

[Anonymous No.18892100]

>>18884915

This fuck name-drops Otto Weininger, clearly tweaking when he wrote this shit.

[Anonymous No.18892114]

All this talk is interesting, but what are you people actually doing in order to escape Yaldabaoth's pain matrix?

[Anonymous No.18892175]

>>18891469
>in control theory
any 101 materials about application of system's theory to philosophy and theology, their intersection?
>you only get evil with dualism, exactly 'what' it is is for the soul of the world (william james term) to decide. thoughts?
another definition: evil is necessity. It is the zero sum logic stemming from the ontology of lack. soul of the world is in exile precisely because it is disconnected from the source of plentitude. the Heart (of Lorkhan? >lmao), thus it is in the state of lack. time is finite.
>At its simplest, yea, two monads are required for duality.
yes, but is it not that weird moment, which is so confusing, that a dual pair of opposition is just another monad? while Monad is non divisible in its essence and it is what it is: simplest entity. so, the relationship between monads is not monad but.. an attribute(?), binding force: love, hate, jealousy, appetite, any kind of reaction. it is not the simplest entity, not an essence but something additional? monad+'programming'
>i don't see how there can be anything to "accept" monadic multiplicity without splitting itself
monadic multiplicity is, in another words, an idea that difference is redeemed by difference. is there really a need to split oneself if you do not react to another monad: there is no relationship, as if there are no other monads. Monads don’t have windows (Leibniz), truly different are simply invisible. So! there's an illustration of that thought:

Oppositions of dual pairs: console fans arguing — but are they not of the same essence? Religion vs atheism posters fighting — are they not of the same essence? these opposing pairs are not dualisms but a same monad, consisting of a thesis-antithesis, that has been captured through a dialectic-machine and made a unified monad (of a higher order(?)). >clarification: a captured-monad is a pair of (thesis-1 and anti-thesis-2) and ((from the other side) thesis-2 anti-thesis-2))
beyond a lock of opposition they are nothing but console-nerds-shitting-on-each-other stuck with the sameness (vulgar nihil). same is invoking/reacting to sameness. being captured with its own projection => losing sovereignty, losing it own Archē (or aether). —
>> thus the 'machine of dialectical synthesis binding this aether to a procession of world(ly) spirit'
>elaborate on that first part
a monad within its own sovereign atmosphere, moved by Archē/Aether is enjoying its own essence. Machine-of-capturing-and-closure strives to lock it in a dialectical opposition to make it part of a higher system to navigate it towards realisation of the procession of world(ly)-spirit. which is another name for Necessity and lack.

I’ve read somewhere in Deleuze that the big idea that there is no Other. crazy guy, right. but it seems that it would be true for an actualized monad swimming in its own essence undisturbed. not even knowing about dialectics and worldspirit: Swedebnorg rolling in a fucking dirt naked. "kant. who?"

[Anonymous No.18892365]

>>18892114

Travis and Iris: >>/lit/thread/S18737969

[Anonymous No.18892398]

>>18892365
I don't get it

[Anonymous No.18892479]

>>18891557
>>18891652

OR, for example, the meaning of "fulfilling the Law": the fulfilling being the exposure of the Black Sun, the full implication of the Law now being demonstrably insane, the Father's face, the Sun, being that which "does not even exist" relative to his anus, The Old Testament being the Father retaining his excrement for the perfect receiver, the "absence of the good", of his release, he finally drops the pretense and reveals that the abjection of human sacrifice was the whole point all along, the event being as obscene as the sight of literal excrement.

[Anonymous No.18892797]

>>18892398

I know.