/lit/ - Literature

>>19099430
Taking a detour through the cloaca of History, slavery, for example, has not only not been abolished, but the world resulting from the efforts to do so have made it absolutely impossible to abolish, the "enlightened" world now considers an ever-increasing number of slaves acceptable or even good provided that they constitute a small enough percentage of the total population; this too is a non-event, a negative thing of pure created absence made by the positive means of its destruction which coincide with presence. This is whence one might best spit in the Catholic's face, the revelation that there is no such thing as a thing, only its destruction, intellectually rehabilitates natural revelation, from the mire of mixture with the Phenomenal that compromises even Empiricism by the principle that the Phenomenal itself can lie despite the good faith of the revealing and observing Subjects, to a properly Theological status only possible by accepting that that which is revealed is Yaldabaoth. Zizek has identified the polar opposite of my thesis, his claim that the unsolvable Godhead-God divide dispassionately dethrones and splits God, incidentally accounting for Evil, a transparent permutation of the "absence of good" argument with the "absence" inside of God, walks no miles, so to speak, whereas I walk two miles and claim that the insoluble presence-Evil coincidence passionately enthrones Yaldabaoth. What is the meaning of murder, for example? The Catholic is the only one guilty of everything that he accuses the Gnostic of: he categorically denies the presence and looks for a cause and resolution beyond it, regardless of parameters, whereas I simply claim that Heaven is for murderers and Hell is for their victims, a seamless continuation of Yaldabaoth's present gracing of his favorite people and degradation of his scapegoat; the abomination of presence. Density is the cross and space is Golgotha. My body is the cross and the world is Golgotha. I am the scene of the worst crime. The scene all but disappears just as the cadaver does: old age as the revelation of the future as nothing but a cancerous accumulation of the past, of too much presence, the abject mockery of the Atonement causing the fall into History rather than its supposed deliverance therefrom, too much presence on top of too much presence, utopia implicitly abolished by its own immanence whereby it is nothing but a stage for recapitulating the accumulating past, too much presence inside too much presence; the more presence scrapes against presence, the less there is. The eschaton is a slaughterhouse made of dark matter, turned inside out and put inside of me, Heaven as pure presence obscuring even its own meaning. The inescapable velocity of the Black Cube, its omnifinitude, is the coincidence of the pull of the Hole and the radiance of the Sun, everything is affected, turned Black, by it without itself ever imploding and/or exhausting itself.

>>18737969
>>18737973

Is this not a failure to realize another even broader, orthogonal, Evil good, whereby the Subject is similarly beckoned to become a Monad? Yes, but no. This the precise structure of the Atonement vs. the Victor, INTER vs. INTRA: the Father embraces the Son as Matthew embraces Iris. Recall the scene where Travis destroys Matthew and the other men between himself and Iris, it ends with the camera looking down at Travis and Iris, then retracing Travis' path, showing Matthew dead at the door and a crowd of people on the formerly empty street. Accepting this retrospect as the true direction of the chain of events, it can be said that Travis spontaneously came out of Iris, in the heart of the Evil good, and destroyed Matthew at a distance. Such is the relation of the Victor and the Atonement, be crucified, on the cross of the aforementioned orthogonal Evil good, from the bottom-up and the outside-in, per the Atonement, and be digested by Yaldabaoth, or be crucified from the top-down and the inside-out, per the Victor, and self-detonate inside his stomach. Perhaps it is not Travis that came out of Iris, but Iris that came out of Travis: the INTRA saves and produces the portrait of the lover as such, acknowledging her reality as the only actual Subject that literally cannot relate, implicitly abolishing the "intrasubjective" front line of desire and exchange.

>Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
>But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
>For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Note the exquisite Gnosticism of the Canonical Gospels: talking the Catholic for his word, the corruption can only be caused by God's natural revelation, he cannot claim otherwise lest he admits that absence itself can cause. What would one's treasure be safe from in Heaven if not "God" himself? This constitutes the very explosion of the Subject, Subjectivity par excellence, whereby the cross itself is called into question, obverting its orthogonal structure BY its orthogonal structure: it is not so much that Satan actually owns all the kingdoms of the world, mere Evil, it is that Jesus is tempted by the Father, Yaldabaoth, Evil good. It is here that the Victor spontaneously comes out of the Atonement, the latter accepts the cross as the very locus of the Demiurgic never itself, collapsing ontogenically down the Subjective phylogenetic vista, yielding to the black hole of Yaldabaoth, whereas the latter does not do the opposite, going up the vista, but laterally obverts the whole vista, by the cross itself, replying with its own radical never and reaches the true discontinuous Outside, the white hole.

>>18635097
>>18635542

Alternatively, "growth", or the impression thereof through Occasionalism, is only given to the damned, Yaldabaoth thereby depurating himself and making one agree that, indeed, one has damned himself.

Docetism, as Gnosticism, is pure Catholic ascription. Other than primary texts, no source speaks of what Docetism actually is, only what the Catholic thinks, or pretends to think, it is. Disregarding the main argument that the accusation of ignoring the Christological problem by vulgar dividing can be turned against the Catholic by simply claiming literal incarnation as vulgar merging, the allegedly Docetic (Christian) primary texts contain none of the aspects allegedly integral to Docetism. Nothing pertaining to Jesus can be mapped onto a God-real/Man-illusory distinction therein. Docetism is only defined as such, or indeed only defined at all, because said texts excite and reveal what the Catholic fears, in this case the divinity and humanity of Jesus being at odds with each other, which is not surprising given that Catholicism is based on degrading both. For example:

>The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me." - The Apocalypse of Peter

Nothing suggests that the living Jesus is distinctly God and/or real and the substitute being put to shame is distinctly Man and/or illusory. Rather, this maps onto Victor vs. Atonement: the latter is real proper but retroactively superseded by the former. Strangely enough, I must commend the Catholic for abandoning vanilla Victor theories, per Augustine, themselves (un)surprisingly quite Docetic in the mainstream sense, in favor of pure Atonement, which is ironically as close as it gets to the Gnostic argument that the Victor is first and foremost triumphant over himself, over the Atonement itself as an even greater transgression than victory over the "Father".