/lit/ - Literature

>>19099503
Reproduction, as the end of outside-in sex, is reproduction of onanism, onanism between more than one person, the mere fragmentation of onanism as a pittance of distinction therefrom; the alleged reproductive "laws" or "instincts" and their fulfillment even being identical to onanistic compulsion in their vacillation between moral deontology and utilitarian consequentialism, claiming one as exclusively true whenever the other is called into question, this too being onanistic. Whereas the climax is a true vantage point into an absence, of sex, of course, since it does not exist, but also into its own absence, toward virginity as analogous with the coincidence of absence and plenitude, of pleasure with its own abolishing. In this sense, the vulgar Pleroma would be the sexual, onanistic, Pleroma of "One is all", and the Gnostic Pleroma would be the climactic, virgin, Pleroma of "One is nothing", the White Hole coinciding with itself. Since one is precluded from being that by being this and from being this by being that, it follows that being both of them would mean being neither of them, and that being all of them would mean being nothing at all, "One is all" even being all but synonymous with "substance is exhaustion". The abomination of accepting all the kingdoms of the world and truly being the son of Yaldabaoth, exhausted without remainder. An exegesis of Nirvana as Anatta. But is Anatta Nirvana? Perhaps this is where the asymmetry is, not as an obscene dimension of symmetry, but just as discrete and arelational as absence. If Nirvana to Anatta is the vista of the Ontological banquet only possible from the vantage point of the main course, what is Anatta to Nirvana? "One is nothing" allows not only a remainder but the otherwise impossible finality of "One is One". Walking two miles, going even further than the coincidence of the Monadic father and Sophianic mother as the mere coincidence of the One and the Virgin, consider the individual coincidences of the One and the One and of the Virgin and the Virgin: the Monad's Monad not only has no Dyad but IS no Dyad in that it does not touch itself so as to avoid constituting its own intra-Monadic Dyad, similarly, the Virgin's Virgin not only has no sex but IS no sex in that it does not touch itself so as to avoid constituting its own onanistic organ; they are only each other by being nothing but themselves, "One is nothing" neither as the One apocryphally becoming nothing, which would violate the "One" in the phrase, nor as the One abiding in nothing, which would violate the "is", but as the literal coincidence of One being itself and being nothing, of plenitude and absence. The White Hole does not even enter itself. Again, is this a crypto-oriental maneuver to turn the intra-Subjective light off? No.

I want a Stefan Burnett vs. Zizek debate on the topic.