/lit/ - Literature

Thus all contemporary philosophy of Difference offers despite everything a strangely Platonizing spectacle: the interminable procession of the most communal entities, Being, Nothingness, Desire, Power, Language, Text, raising themselves up from the ground of experience each in turn like shades at once bloodless and laden with chains, trying to lift themselves in infinite file towards a mirage of the One where they would believe themselves capable of being regenerated and saved from empirical hell as at a wellspring of life. It is truly a bizarre and certainly Quite 'philosophical' merry-go-round, philosophical because it is simultaneously ascending and descending and playing itself out finally in a circle and in place. As if these larvae wished, by their hesitations, their stumblings, their skiddings, the allure of their approach continually spoiled, to abandon the weighty forms of being or non-being in order to yield and sink into their limit, to abandon their determined forms of existence, to prove to themselves that they still exist when in truth they exist only as fleeting larvae on the earth. They seek the One precisely because they have not found it, and they will never find anything but their own hallucination. They neither find nor become anything other than what they already are: them-'selves'.

Ok this fucking slaps

>'Dasein' is resaid, in the philosophical wherein it is already said, as the 'Saying-as-said'. It is a said that is not limited to simply being itself said without its saying it again. It has the following ontological distinction: that of saying that it does indeed have the ontic distinction of being able to say that it is not limited to simply appearing as a said within saying, but that it has the ontic distinction of having the ontological distinction of saying that in its saying it is concerned about this very saying, and of saying that in this saying it is concerned with this auto-affection of saying, and of having a relationship-of-saying to the relationship-of-saying that it has with this power of saying.

Laruellechads... I can't keep up...

>The subject is an aleatory subject and a micro-messiah.

Laruellesisters, what could he have possibly meant by this?

>Man is the secret-being, or the being of an absolutely invisible real; all the rest, that is to say the All or Being, ceases to be for him a secret, and becomes visible to him.

What the FUCK did he mean by this?

>The Only One is the ante-Copernican subject delivered from the horrible face-to-face. From solitude in the World, to a solitude which is not of this World.

Laruellechads.... why didn't anyone tell me he was so based...

>The negative moment of death is no longer subsumed via the resurrection, like a good dialectician would understand, rather, the New Life of the Risen stands as a symbol that signals, through death and the empty tomb, the already separate status of life from the world.

Laruellesisters.... what was intended to be conveyed by this?

>If Being is an ongoing fulguration, the One is the eye of the storm.

Laruellebros...... what did he mean by this?

Well, I've been reading this for the past few days and am mostly getting filtered. Some of the things he says are fairly straightforward and interesting, but his entire lexicon of non-philosophy is extremely difficult to understand.

>The face of the One does not add anything to the One except itself, but the One adds immanently to itself the face or the person that is added to it.

Laruellesisters... what the FUCK did he mean by this?

>The messiah-function ... is the famous “spark” of the gnostics and mystics, the “pearl,” as a last radiance, the last-instance radiance of the flash of the Logos.

Laruellechads... what the fuck did he mean by this??

>There is no revolution “in” history as long as history itself is not “revolutionized” or revolted against.

Laruellechads...... I don't know what he means by this.....

>World, philosophy, and/or mysticism are ruled systems of subterfuges to requisition the human to the service of the accumulation of World-Capital (if not the capital-world), indeed to the service of this blend, God-Capital.

Laruellesisters..... what did he mean by this?

>>19576180
I feel it is a non-relation because I experience the World as a predator, a topological parasite, not a field ready-made for my instruction. What helps me grow in it is precisely detachment from it. Hence, "suffering makes one good."

Think of the One not as a positive condition of Life (as an emanation, emission, production, etc.) but its negative condition. The World needs the One to be a World (a closed circle, which it'll never be, because if it was, this nightmare would be final and absolute), not the One which needs the World to be a One.

The idea is that transcendence isn't what saves me from the World (by "going over" being), but precisely my immanence ("going under" it). I am tangent to the Circle of reality, quite literally Samsara.

Instead of trying to articulate a philosophical system that tries to break out of the World-Circle from the inside (by transcending it, doing this, doing that), the point is to try and think a non-philosophical orientation where I never entered that circle to begin with - to try and think how I already coincide as the Exit I am looking for, on my side (unilaterally, immanently).

Easy.

Now go read a book instead of globbing philosophers you only care about for the meme points.

what the fuck is he saying?

>>19208769
If you think you can handle it, then start with Laruelle. He jettisons the mythological baggage to extract Gnosticism's radical kernel (be warned, he's not an acosmicist, but he is no fan of the World by any stretch of the imagination).

>been writing philosophy since the brady bunch
>crickets from the anglosphere

Why won't the world take the Laruellepill already? Deleuze, Guattari, Foucault, Bataille, etc. are old hat.

>The One is One because it is One rather than because it is or is Other.

What the FUCK did Laruelle mean by this?

>Laruelle endorses identity of the same, not heterogeneity or difference; his non-standard method requires ascetic withdrawal, not the kind of self-realization associated with the “me generation” of post- 1968 philosophy; his ontology is rooted in a cryptography of being, not the more popular pornography of being (evident in the virtues of transparency, the strategies of capture, or the logics of aletheia); he requires a unilateral relation, not today’s hegemony of multilateral ecologies of difference (assemblages, rhizomes, networks). No wonder that Laruelle has been overlooked for so many years.

Where do I start with the Laruelle?

>>18798240
I second the "After God" recommendation.

Anyone looking for a high level formalization of Gnosticism, read pic related.

>>18775289
>[cock chopping] is a good thing according to Gnosticism.
Lol. This is the last reply you'll get from me.

>>18775288
>uhh dude trying to escape the world feeds you back to it
Never thought of this before. Read pic related you git, stop trying to mog me.

I'm tired of muh deleuze, whitehead, hegel. Read Laruelle already.

ITT: nuclear whitepills