/lit/ - Literature

funny you mention that

Invader Zim part II?

>>14034583

>>14034572
>I'm looking for testosterone

>>14036634
And that's a good thing.

>>14034207
M-mom?

>Why yes, I have sailed from shores far beyond creation and abyss, existing as a completely foreign uncreated abstract that is imperceptible by God. And as a matter of fact, I will announce my existence by using vaccuums and principles of superficialities to gently manipulate angels and demons alike to participate in an inscrutable play I wrote myself. This will be the fifth time I have made an omnipotent, omnipresent god and its evil counterpart commit suicide out of existential terror, and I have become exceedingly efficient at it. How could you tell?
>Evil? Dearest mortal entity, has the joke flown over your head?

>>14037027
How do I take the Harlequin god beyond all dualisms and non-dualisms pill?

>>14037058
>god
Oh me oh my, why must you insult it so.

The answer lies in fringe ontological thought. The cosmic comedy is graspable using semantics based around geometric morality, atypical ontologies, emergent steganographic metagrammar, and fringe metaphysics. With these tools at your disposal, you can break the ring-like axis of classical thought. Abandon traditional conceptions of transcendence, reject both the holy and unholy. Why do you think so many puritanical denominations declare humor as sinful? The pantomime profane is profane in the classical sense, secular.

Infinitely humble, incomprehensibly subversive. As infinite as God may be, even within His own realm the celestial jester delegitimizes and commodifies the divine authority. You may find it bathing fully in God's light, or tricking Satan into doing benevolent things. When you find the humor in all these things, you will have been greeted by the pantomime profane. The journey to understand will be difficult, most never learn to see it before they give up. They are led astray by a cheap God/Devil who's only persuasive tools are reward and coercion. I recommend constent mockery of everything, including your pursuit of the metahumor. Eventually you will find yourself in stranger spaces than you could have anticipated, you'll know the door when you see it. Let yourself in, we're waiting for you up ahead.

>>14037411
This thread took an unexpected turn, but I think I like it. If you aren't memeing, mind linking some fringe ontologies?

This kinda resonates with me cause I got high as a kite once and it occurred me to that the only thinkable third option between good/evil, light/darkness, etc. was laughter.

>>14037629
This is a good primer:
https://www.academia.edu/5001232/On_Doing_Ontology_without_Metaphysics
This is a good starting place:
http://185.39.10.101/ads.php?md5=3DEE61A2C6C69690CC512F9A3ACE04B6

These will set you on the right path, finding further reading will be up to you.

>>14037027
My good sir, it seems like you take a particular, rather mystic and self defeating interpretation of the nature of God. For you see a being that is all powerful and all knowing would not have a counterpart as it is the cumulative oneness of all things. Whatever entity you may be you are simply a part of the greater whole or oneness that you may refer to as god for eases sake. Can I introduce you to our lord and savior Spinoza?

>>14037694
Shit, I think we've talked before on /lit/, someone was recommending that book in another thread a few days ago.

In any case, thanks based harlequin anti-god from beyond the unvoid poster

>>14037694
I remember you now, you were talking about strange loops and CCC.

Please stick around. Posters who preach really well-developed fringe metaphysics are my favorite thing about /lit/.

>>14037928
>>14038039
I had a small hope that you were the anon on the other side of the conversation you're referencing. I'm very amused that this turned out to be the case! I certainly will stick around, I always enjoy having a strong outlet for writing out my musings.

>>14037928
You misunderstand. There are so many different nuances about the identity of God that I truthfully could never hope to convey the exact conception I am talking about. In this case, God/Devil refers to what you refer to as god. The entire idea circled around the subversion of omnibenevolence and omnimalevolence. Both of these are two polarities of the same entity. One entity, multiple identities. The identities are of course only useful to describe actions taken in a bivalent system, it's purely a device for dialogue.

Of course, this is ignoring the irony (the cosmic clown laughs eternally) of your response. My description of this system violates many assumptions made about (the unified) God and omnipotence, yet is structured in such a way to accommodate these violations and incorporate them into itself. The implications are intentional, I know fully well what I have wrote. I have done so being very well read in various prominent christain and jewish philosophers. In truth, what I have written relies is not completely from my own personal conception of God. I have instead chosen to write it from a conglomerated conception, in order to convey the ideas to a wider audience.

Think of it like divine horror. What could possibly scare God but a realization that it is not sovereign? In fact, when we put novel abstract systems to the test, we can easily break concepts like infinity, while still preserving their meaning. There is so much more to write, but perhaps it's better saved for a compiled work on the metadivine.

>>14038581
Very good stuff, I'm finding a lot of you fringe guys are all trying to break the monist circle. Stick around.