/lit/ - Literature

This is what good reading gloves look like.

>>14581694
>explored Gothic fiction pretty thoroughly

How does a man do this?

>>14131621
>Fiction
It depends on how you define fiction, and how you define god.

>bad
This also depends on multiple factors. On the low end, where god is conceived as a mere preternatural entity, a mind is capable of redefining valence associations arbitrarily given enough practice. States of being associated with god being recontextualized as undesirable, and states of being associated without god being recontextualized as desirable paints god as bad in the truest sense of the word. God can only be considered as good in this case insofar as one neglects to consider the meaning of good and bad, shirking the preexistence of solipsist valence to "good" and "bad", and the ability to argue the goodness of god becomes a hopeless affair. A soul strange enough is uncompelled by both the persuasion coercion of god. Not in an ontological or dialectical rejection, but through simple concepts that exist outside the familiar system in the first place, and by definition cannot be acted upon.

However, if we take a more subtle and nuanced understanding of god as omnibenevolence, the definition and character of god shift with our recontextualizations. By changing our valence, we perform what is known as arbitrary observation injections, and the very fabric of god itself warps. In this instance you are somewhat correct, but anti-exclusive oxymoronic divinity goes against all traditional conceptions of god, and the intransitive transcendence is usually rejected very hard for the threat that it poses to thousands of years of thinking. The correctness of this can even be falsified, by peeling back the epistemology of god itself. Rather than conceptualize it as a traditional entity, we can instead imagine god as an entity with an undecidable identity, and that which may only be identified by a proxy meta-identity. It's far better, and potentially more accurate to conceive of god as an impermanent bed of chaos, a completed plane that cannot be traversed WITHOUT contradiction, and contradiction that does not falsify the conflicting components. Under this new conception, one simply readjusts the front by shifting the focus of valence to this higher level, and in not redefining valence, still sets goals counter to what is "good". This creates a meta-good, outside the domain of traditional good/bad dichotomies, and outside the ground covered by omnibenevolence. The shift is not contained inside the meta-good, but in the extension, where it can be dialectically preserved even against a paradox, by virtue of existing entirely parallel to the mechanism of good and bad in the first place.

In either case, "any way bad" can only hold solipsistic truth. The most concrete and hardened material is softer and more fragile than you could possibly imagine.

>>14061262

Read this seminal book:

>The Mysteries of Udolpho is a Gothic novel by Ann Radcliffe, published in 1794. It was one of the most popular novels of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It was then and continues to be widely regarded as a key text in the development of the Gothic genre.

>tfw you get a free rosary with your order