/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19324629]

Human beings are TOKENS OF A GENERIC MATRIX: the body, the brain, biology: are transcendental “concessions” to a public physics, and the principles of admixture besides: the “means” by which I am made valid for a World – how a non-biological Vision is made valid for an eye – not how the World makes me valid for me... in other words, it is not just that the World is an occasion for selves (Metzinger's pole = all a self is, is the utility it has for the information processing systems we call brains), but it is selves that are occasions for the World: not an agent without a Self (Yaldabaoth = nemocentric space), but a Self without a Face... not a Demon of the Circle, but an Angel of the tangent line... Man and the World are RADICALLY – not absolutely – distinct: not absolutely because the former is still affected by the latter – but in such a way this difference is only operative on the side of transcendence: in myself I am in-different, I am objectified only on that side of me which is in any case objectivated to begin with... I am objectified unilaterally, and it is this superposition – this “relation of relation to non-relation” - this mode which is also the underdetermination of every mode - which Henry fails to grasp: but who will you be? Tomóceusz or Gyugyu? The monster who reigns at the top of the world, the supreme right of force? Or his eternal Slave, the V which suffers his force with conscience clear as a winter star? Because “only suffering makes one good”: only suffering sunders the (non-)connective tissue between myself and the disjunctive graft of the body, cosmic mind... only in suffering does the World protrude into me to such an extreme it protrudes past me... to be “given-without-givenness”, to enter and leave without a splash: a sun without a corona: we here oppose the (transcendentally naive) Identity of the One with the God of Schelling's (onanistic) noncoincidence with himself, the “divine” madness of a freedom never “free to be unfree”: this Identity (of which I am a clone) is precisely why Brassier's criticism of phenomenological “mineness” falls so flat, the issue isn't that my “mineness” is abstract - interchangeable with yours, but precisely that I am gripped by MY locus as opposed to yours, that there must exist some criterion that determines my being gripped by THIS self-model as opposed to this one ... if this difference is an immanent one – if the night vision which surveys all possible visions in-itself is itself self-selected – then the Stranger is generically every Stranger, and what a “marvel of marvels … [that] such wealth has come to dwell in [such] poverty”: the whole point of all this is to formalize an INDESTRUCTIBLE EXIT from the positive universe: to immunize the non-ontological to the malaria of the ontological: not that it ever needed immunity, we just needed a reminder: RETRACT THY PROBOSCIS: Get The Vaccine :^)

[Anonymous No.19324636]

>>19324629
>Get The Vaccine :^)
you lost me here

[Anonymous No.19324640]

>>19324629
ok

[Anonymous No.19324665]

>Metzinger
>Brassier
Theorycel cringe

[Anonymous No.19324734]

Brassier himself, when it suits him at moments that are always “falsist,” has to resort to the most ludicrous caricatures against Deleuze, and to claim in general that he will make things worse. He claims at one point that Deleuze said “the absolute ideal of reason is a machine that spews concepts. Deleuze will say “there is only One substance. That is the machine” he is not against it. He accepts the need for concepts to come about: he would accept, if you insist on seeing these remarks as “translatable [into] a political theory of difference for example” (as opposed to what Deleuze would understand of difference in absolute transcendence as not-ontology), that Deleuze's “Machine” is an ontological Difference - as you must insist ... as does, say, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri! - but not in the least that it is “against ideology” and instead a transcendental (trans)formation in the process of the (auto)immune process.

[Anonymous No.19324906]

>>19324629
I don't understand, but I agree 100%

[Anonymous No.19325084]

>>19324629
be sure to livestream your inevitable suicide faggot

[Anonymous No.19325112]

>>19324629
It should go "... there must exist some criterion that determines my being gripped by THIS self-model as opposed to that one ... if this is an immanent difference..."

Thanks.

[Anonymous No.19325263]

>>19324629
Read less. Think more.

[Anonymous No.19325350]

>>19324636
>>19324640
>>19324665
>>19325084
cretins

>>19325263
We all read Schopenhauer kid.

[Anonymous No.19325462]

>>19324665
I was quite disappointed with Metzinger, whose ideas seemed to boil down to an extremely autistic enlargement of Hume's "bundle" thing that didnt remotely address the issue of consciousness itself. There is this European, I think Swiss, guy who published a paper a few years ago about what he calls "dual aspect pan proto psychism" which makes a lot of sense about the hard problem, though the solution has an oddly unsatisfying, empty feeling to it. The paper is on b-ok, guy's name is Benovsky. There is also a little paper analyzing this by another guy called Aspects in Dual-Aspect Monism and Panpsychism: A Rejoinder to Benovsky, which appears to be saying the system has to be defined as dualist rather than monist(seems not that important to me tbqh). It addresses the mineness issue op is discussing as well. I shill this guy not so much because I am a fan but because I think his ideas could provoke discussion. I can summarize the main points later if nobody wants to read the paper but it's very short and simple.

Brassier is wholly useless about this, all he does is use his galaxy brain IQ to dismantle other people's arguments with their own tools. His whole project of positive nihilism or whatever it was never materialized at all.

[Anonymous No.19325811]

>>19324629
This is intentionally written in this weird ass style, Jesus.

[Anonymous No.19325863]

>>19325811
the spell of haze blurs concrete lines that occlude the identity which is the object of forward-moving thought: 'the criterion of being gripped' is revealed to one who is following the mercurial trail of the identity. with a knowledge that at some distant point different even parallel lines converge; not in a communal consumption (vile penetration) but in a slight contact where movement recognizes itself in a multiplicity of variants (of truth) and by that being emancipated from the gross and heavy weights of doubt.

[Anonymous No.19325937]

>>19325863
Yes.

[Anonymous No.19325979]

https://books.google.ro/books?id=uHdNDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=black+gnosticism+sloterdijk&source=bl&ots=S-u0cqmSm-&sig=ACfU3U3bTbv3SWkbCeK3a5Wh9up4-_GYTg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQtMer0ffzAhU6iP0HHeaiBVQQ6AF6BAgVEAM#v=onepage&q=black%20gnosticism%20sloterdijk&f=false

Related?

[Anonymous No.19326031]

>>19325979
Yes.

[Anonymous No.19326250]

>>19325462
>I can summarize the main points later if nobody wants to read the paper but it's very short and simple.
Go.

[Anonymous No.19327368]

summarize deez nuts

[Anonymous No.19327378]

>>19325350
Cringe.