/lit/ - Literature

Remember to report these threads for advertising, anons.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54503074-the-synthesis-of-the-objective-and-the-subjective
Each thread ought to begin with some variation of the cover.
/pol/thread/267823602

>>15854712
Cry newfag, cry

>>15854677
Shitty op image no bumps for you

I prefer reading Plotinus On Love, paraphrase: Homofaggotry sex is wrong, even straight sex for mere pleasure is gay.

>>15854724
Dady would you like some sosig
Dady would you like some sosiges
Dassy would you like sosig
SOSIGESOSIGES

>>15854712
>Remember to report these threads for advertising, anons.

>>15854716
You clean up this mess and get your ass out that door looking for a job, you retard

This is worse than Goonan posting. At least he was discreet.

>>15854777
Its worse because the books biggest crime isnt that its just fucking terrible, which it is. Its that its boring.

sosig

damn...

sausage

>>15855833
That's the most retarded thing I have ever read

Beef

>>15855833
Fuck sake

>>15855833
Not only philosophy but also military expertise?
A true Marcus Aurelius of our time.

>>15854677
>SOSIG
I'm unable to read this as anything else but "sausage".

>>15854794
Roollll

>>15856278
Oh looks like I'm starting a book! I've been meaning to do that for a while but I still want to read Hero With A Thousand Faces prior to starting a story. At least I have some direction now that I know it has to be about a writer I enjoy.

Pls recommend other reading that will help my story writing.

>>15856318
Read Horia

>>15854794
Footfags get the rope.

>>15854794
Roll

>>15856512
I'll pay:
This sentence uses the world fun.

>>15856345
Already started reading it, not a fan. Recc something else

>>15856614
Read Jurassic Park then.

Well at least he got lit to read.

>>15856620
Ok

Very interesting take on Kant

>>15856669
That is a good take tbf

>>15856701
It's unfortunately a wrong take which leads him to arrive at analytic a posteriori judgements

>>15856655
Have a good time.

>>15856724
So he denies synthetic anything?

>>15856724
Or is it just written esoterically as in did he mean analytic a posteriori was wrong and implied that it's synthetic a posteriori and analytic a priori?

>>15856730
No, he tries to argue that analytic a posteriori judgements are possible despite Kant saying otherwise. This is because he believes analytic means 'universal', but analytic means tautologically true (predicate contained within the subject) so, although it's 'universal', it cannot be empirical as it's true by its nature not as confirmed by experience. He doesn't address the subject of synthetic knowledge, but by the looks of it, it seems that he does not disagree with it.

>>15856747
>did he mean analytic a posteriori was wrong
Well, Kant also believed analytic a posteriori doesn't make sense, and this is not controversial as far as I know.

>>15856750
Yeah I think he just skipped a step and meant to say analytic leads you eventually to universals

>>15856757
Yeah I meant did he write it as a side note. Tbh I agree and many after kant in the 19th century that rationalism was tied to analytic statement and empiricism was to synthetic.

>>15856758
Yeah overall he still has a better understanding of Kant than /lit/ and that's presumambly without having read him

In Chapter 103, Belcea attempts to reconcile Hume and Kant. Although Kant is believed to disagere with Hume, "causation" as a category of understanding is still a concept of the mind and not to be observed.

>>15856831
You better give a good exegesis on Amazon for us

>ctrl+f "jew"
>0 results
Alas, even the most dauntless thinkers of our time no longer dare to address the JQ

>>15854677
The epub's on libgen, much better than a PDF. You need to read the masterwork in its most pristine form.

Hi, can a Belcea scholar explain what these Belcean terms mean

>feminine
>masculine
>physical plane
>spiritual plane
>objective-center
>subjective-periphery

>>15857015
Idk rest but objective center is like analytic and subj periph is like synthetic

Extremely based

>>15857040
Is crashing your car and lying about it a sacrament of Belceanism?

>>15857040
>from the perspective of the universe
What, the universe as an entity? The universe as a fabric? The universe as a plane?

Why did he take so long to write "It is objective if a thing happens in the universe"? For someone so obsessed with undermining academics, he sure is trying to emulate one.

>>15857065
You're just jealous he's written a book and got it published

What shall be the third member of the new trinity?

>>15857084
The Last Binge Ever by Londonfrog

>>15857084
My Twisted World is actually an interesting read. Sausageboy just shit out some thoughts and didn't have the decency to even edit them besides writing clicking on the words with little red squiggles underneath them.

>>15857084
ESKETIT

>>15857101
I should have hired an editor for myself. I meant "right clicking", not "writing clicking", obviously.

>>15857076
I don't care about that, I care more about the errant hypocrisy.

>>15857015
I haven't finished my studies of Bercean metaphysics, but I am under the impression that objective-center is any entity that exerts a force on or an interaction with other entities as part of a system. For the social aspect of this, Foucault may help understanding Bercea.

The subjective-periphery appears to be the barrier by which sense data or signals reach a system (Chapter 111.) Similar to what Kant termed sensibility, but due to the limitations of transcendental idealism, Kant had to limit his ontology to human agents, while Bercea can easily extend his principles to any system.

>>15857101
Dude, you're getting to read notes from a guy who's been working on a weird philosophical system for 6 years, and at the end he thought he should publish it under his real name. He goes into all sorts of topics and his writing is very readable. Yeah, he's narcissistic and delusional, but who cares? This is not a philosophical revolution, it's the musings of some /lit/ard who refused to learn philosophy yet challenged himself to write all this shit. It's pretty amazing stuff, and his system is pretty coherent and comprehensive even if obviously amateurish and superficial. Horia is based asf and people who take it seriously and hate on him are cringe pseuds

>>15857124
... So what's the objective centre of the family unit?

This is literally some pagan tier circle worship. It's common even in modern shamanism.

>>15857217
The man of course

Wait till it makes it to /lit/'s 2020 best books chart

>>15857240
How can the man be centre if both have a role to play? Shouldn't the synthetic concept of family/tribe be placed at the centre? Get your shit in a row, Horia.

>>15857040
Very based indeed. I am struggling to reconcile the seemingly right-minded bits of this with the utterly imbecilic

>>15857249
Dunno how this ties in with his synthetic discussion, but I don't think he really understands the synthetic/analytic distinction. He only uses 'synthetic' in that one Kant paragraph so it was probably after reading a blog post on Kant or something

>>15857040
Berkeley-approved ontology

>>15857280
His entire point in this section is people being unified by a different force to their own action; he uses planets as an example, as being unified by the sun/solar system. How can the man in a relationship be both the centre of the family unit, as well as an acting force within it, and one that is not entirely independent in its actions? That's like saying the sun is the uniting pillar in the solar system, and is unto itself a planet.
It's not a coherent idea.

>>15857323
That paradox is at the heart of relativity. Linking that to cartesian dualism was a bold move and deserves recognition.
It is you who does not understand, pleb.

>>15856669
How does he know these things about Kant, despite admitting in the preface that he has never read philosophy or shown any interest in it?

>>15857323
The solar system is the family, the non-father family members are the planets, and the father is the Sun

sosig

>>15857040
But the event of informing your family a week later is an objective occurance just as much as the car crash is. Nobody denies origin points. Light photons originate from somewhere, of course, but it sounds as though he's saying that origination is the only objective fact, when in fact light continues existing at every one of the infinite points-of-travel as it shoots across the cosmos.

>>15857124
Why did he choose Christmas for this example instead of New Year's?

>>15857536
He talks about his calendaristic studies in Chapters 101 and 102 but it's probably his Christanity bias

>>15857480
He doesn't read full books, but he mentioned in the original thread he reads exerpts and stuff

>>15857568
>study
I don't understand this Bercean Term, although it pops up quite frequently in the text. Can someone give me a Bercean definition of "study"? It doesn't seem to match the use of the word in the common parlance of the plebs, so I'm sure he is re-appropriating it for a better use.

>>15857591
It refers to studying as a mental activity. Studying X means reading very little about X to extract the purest idea (might not work for plebs) without corrupting it with authorial artefacts, and then elevating the study into the mind to develop, improve, and eventually perfect the subject of study.

>>15857591
it's like recursive thought, mental analysis taken to its purest ends

hieroglyphics clues for belceanism

>>15857678
I see that he receives written messages from Thoth as well. Good to see a fellow enlightenment brother in the world.

>>15857678
the facts and logic of the belceanist vs the seethe and cope of the anti-belceanist

>>15857715
>logic
Note that the Belceanist logic differs somewhat from that of the Anti-Belceanist, so it's only a case of the latter failing to grasp Belceanism.

>>15857678
This isn’t bad. However I think it falls apart in the fourth properties. How does the objective center contain its own data but also retain data from the past? To me it seems like this would make the objective now a subjective receiver of past centers or of the past as a giving center itself. Therefor the objective center should have only its own data, and if it has “past” data in the sense that it is objective outside of time, then it should have “future” data too. This in turn means the subjective periphery can’t redirect data. A redirection of data constitutes a change, but data cannot be affected by the periphery since what that data will be is already contained in the objective. Perhaps all he needs is to replace the word redirects, but this thought is not fully fleshed out.

>>15857758
"We mustn't forget that the objective-center is a subjective being too." - Belcea

One has to read the book to really grasp the synthesis of the objective and subjective.

>>15857776

>>15857776
Ah so this is more a model for people to live by/be understood by rather than a metaphysics of the universe? Guess this goes to show you should really just read the whole of a book you wish to discuss or critique

>>15857803
>this is more a model for people to live by/be understood by rather than a metaphysics of the universe?
I think it's both, but I haven't read it either and he introduces other concepts like the ones in the 2nd paragraph here >>15857789 and I don't know what they mean

To really understand the depths of the synthesis between the objective and the subjective, one has to be at least familiar with the basic Belcean concepts ( >>15857015 )

>>15857824
gott admit he'd easily fit among the postmodern French "greats" if he had written it in the style of an obscurantist academic. objective-center and subjective-periphery are two very aesthetic concepts

>>15857859
Yeah if he dropped all the political theory trash and used more academic language, he'd fit right in. But the beauty of Belcea is that he is opposed to such sophistry and wants to share with us his entire thought process undecorated and unfiltered

Beautiful.

>>15857892

>>15857968
Maybe we were too quick to judge... although that mass of autobiographic wankery that started the book was off putting and perhaps a mistake

I appreciate the novel observations about, as the title refers to, the synthesis between subjectivity and objectivity.
But it really does not feel like it warrants a book of this length being written about it, especially when so much of the book is spent prattling on about unrelated topics that the author thinks are tangentially related. Which is understandable considering that it was written in under a year in mostly a stream-of-consciousness style, but it really would have appreciated better editing from someone who has read any academia.

>>15857968
Asinine word spaghetti. Take that shit back to the 1400s.

>>15858039
The book is about his process, anon. The unrelated topics are central to help us understand his development. You can see that in 2020, he's almost entirely focused on his metaphysics and he dropped most of his egotism.

You can see in Belcea's original thread; he said:
>The book is a very personal journey, the entire length is organized in a personal journalistic fashion, so I guess I feel the need to tell people that it's more than a personal story, but can have a large impact.
>>/lit/thread/S15824974

Is there a chapter on the author’s experience of profound catharsis upon watching Rick and Morty for the first time?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odQoZ6edyTI

>>15858585
Can't believe Max Ernst plagiarised Horia Belcea.

>>15857015
Belcea dabbler here. I'll try my hand

>Early Belceanism (2014-2017)
Feminine and masculine are modes of thinking: feminine is thinking focused on understanding and developing the physical world, and masculine thinking is focused on understanding and developing ideas. e.g. an engineer would engage in feminine activity while a philosopher would be masculine.

>Middle Belceanism (2018-2019)
While initially mostly focused on psychology, Belcea starts to consider metaphysical concepts more and proposes his physical-spiritual dualism similar to body-mind. Spiritual is the realm of ideas and physical is the material world; it's "spiritual" instead of "mind" because Belcea considers that it must lead to a connection with God. Naturally, masculinity is related to the spiritual realm and femininity with the physical plane.

>Late Belceanism (2020)
This is where Belcea explores uncharted territory, and I don't know if I understand it very well. He now focuses on systems: each system has an objective-center that commands subjective-peripheries. These systems may exist both in the physical plane (solar systems) or in the spiritual plane (religion, ideologies).

An objective-center keeps together its system and establishes harmony. For example, the state is an objective-center that describes the system, and the citizens are the subjective-peripherals that take orders from the state, but they can e.g. leave the nation and go somewhere else. The objective-center cannot do that because that's when the system collapses.

But as you can see, the objective-center has a wide perspective over the system, while the subjective participants mostly have a perception of themselves. If you, as a citizen, start to look outwards and experience the entire system and its harmony, you are exhibiting objectivity as a subjective observer. This is not limited to states: your own self is an objective-center which you don't fully know as your consciousness is just a subjective-peripheric of the system. However, as you start understanding your actions, your thoughts, your desires, and other subjective-peripheries, you start to gain an objective view of the system even if you cannot fully understand your own self (the objective-center). Similarly, the objective-center may be subjective relative to another system as your self may be affected in a larger system by a higher objective-center (could even be God)

Thus, in a system with an objective-center and subjective-peripherals, the subjective-periphery can look outwards and perceive itself as a part of a harmonious system (objectively) while the object-center is unknowable to anyone, including itself, and thus it is perceived differently by all entities (subjectively)

Thus, the objective-center and the subjective-periphery unite together to form a harmonious system that is both objective and subjective, resultant from the synthesis of the subjective and the objective.

>>15858585
>the synthesis of the physical and the spiritual is the same as the synthesis of the objective and the subjective
Belcea is rolling in his grave right now.

>>15858753
Beautiful

>>15858753
holy based

>>15857040
Bros... I think I'm ascending

I wish I wasn't exhausted so I could enjoy this retardation instead of being just mildly irritated

>>15854677
>SOSIG
Can we start calling this 'sausage philosophy'?

>>15857480
He started to read Descartes, Hume, Kant at some point by 2019. In the 2016 part of his book he said he still hadn't read Descartes. Remember this man is in his 30s.

>he still hadn't read Descartes. Remember this man is in his 30s.

>NOOO YOU CAN'T JUST DEVELOP PHILOSOPHY! NOT THE HECKIN SKIPPIN DESCARTERINO!!!

>>15855833
Holy shit, up until today I had considered myself intelligent. After reading this I’ve realized I’m a midwit hack. I’ve got to buy this book.

>>15857968
This is actually gud

>>15858753
Holy shit... This makes too much sense. Was Belcea right after all?

>>15858939
>>15858960
Seethe more Horia.

>Seethe more Horia.

>>15859086
Hi horia

Holy shit Belcea is popping

>>15859144
How many sales would that be? 2?

>>15859086
>wojak.png
>i-it's not me seething, it's YOU!!!!
Fuck off Horia. You're pathetic.

>>15859144
if any of us had money we could seriously meme this to the top 100
he really needs to bring the digital version down to 99c though
also if he signs up for exclusive digital partner to kindle he can put it on sale for $0 once a month, giving him infinite sales if anons bought it on those days
#amazonhacker

When is Belcea coming back?

>>15859004
Horia did nothing wrong

>>15859763
Mister Belcea we need you

https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/List%C4%83_de_localit%C4%83%C8%9Bi_din_jude%C8%9Bul_Boto%C8%99ani

if one ctrl + f Horia and then ctrl + f Belcea. May it be his name is only a pseudonym?

They laughed at Jesus too..........

>>15859934
And at Socrates, when he went on to found modern philosophy. We believe in you, Horia!

>>15859869
the discord trannies already found out it was a penname

>>15860046
they found out anything else worthwhile?

>>15860046
Pretty sure it's not. You can find him on Google and it confirms what he saying that he has an economics masters, that he's into investing, etc

>>15860046
Oh the newfags found out that out? Then I'm sure thats honestly nothing.

>>15860058
his real first name is Horik

>it's becoming mainstream

>>15860316
sosig philosophy is going to become a hot meme

>>15860316
we should be careful, meme magic is not something you play with

>>15860336
>>15860316
>hot meme!
>twitter!

>>15860316
god women can sound stupid talking about anything cant they

>>15854794
Roll

>>15860380
carefully, he's a hero! everyone liked that.

>>15860518
>he thinks that's a woman
OH NO NO NO

>>15860749
Well, making that twitter post is very feminine in Belcean terms

>>15858753
Doesn't the definition of the objective-center that I read from your post and from the other excerpts and various anons' posts subtly imply that there is (possibly) an infinite chain of these harmonious systems, both in the micro and macro scales?

>>15857968
He clearly becomes more intelligent as the book goes on. This would actually be interesting to read if he hadn't tried to mix his metaphysics with a narrow political message. It isn't anything substantial but I would be interested in reading something by someone from /lit/.

Y'know, is this book actually a masterwork? As a study of the ego of the midwit, and the slow erosion of the self as the midwit begins to think more critically? This text is a journey, it begins with a mouth breathing, Dunning Kruger afflicted narrator, and ends with the well written and substantiated Metaphysics of our entire reality. Maybe Belcea was a genius. Maybe he was trying to teach us something. Maybe this work is the truest synthesis of the spirit of modernity.
Call me a true believer.

>>15854677

Ya got me! after seeing a few of these threads i actually had a look at the pdf, in the belief that his might be an interesting philosophical work rather than a particularly self-important /b/ post.

Janitors! sort it out! now!

In a way it’s a successful pleb filter since you actually have to read the whole thing. If you don’t anyone that’s read it will be able to see at what point you dropped out based on your thoughts

>>15861259
You have to understand that the structure of this novel is intentionally abrasive. It starts off as the amateurish journalistic musings of an idiot. This piece is a journey through the Mind of Belcea. You must read the entire thing.

>>15861228
>This would actually be interesting to read if he hadn't tried to mix his metaphysics with a narrow political message

Yeah, when it's not establishment leftist bullshit it's a "narrow political message," yet everyone else is allowed to pump their garbage ideology into everything they touch.
Fuck off

>>15861363
I-d-i-o-t. When you are finished fervently demolishing strawmen, think critically about what I said.

>>15861398
you forgot your slap emote
and i know exactly what you meant, braindead simpleton

>>15858753
>>15857968
This is beautiful. Belcea arrives at neutral monism similar to Spinoza, James, Russell. The world is just one "substace" rather than a dualism: you can see it either as mental/spiritual or material/physicial, but they're otherwise synoyms. It's just a matter of perspective: if you see things from within, you see the idealism/metal perspective; if you see things from without, you see the realist/physical perspective.

What Belcea calls objective/subjective is actually substace/ideas, and their synthesis is the world from different directions.

A /lit/terati found out Spinoza's neutral monism from a different angle.

>Spinoza’s metaphysics of substance has been called neutral monism; it is a form of monism because it allows for only one substance, and it is neutral because he describes the one substance as both a body and a mind

>>15861257
Ill call you a faggot and youll like it.

>>15861481
It's very similar to Russell's metaphysics https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russellian-monism/

>>15861481
"Directions" have nothing to do with it and is a complete misunderstanding of spinoza if that's how you thought he thought mind and body were "synthesized".

>"The bear is a platonic concept" [...] this [perfect] concept of "the bear" does not exist anymore"

>"the concept of the bear does not exist in reality; we can only invent it in our mind"

>"there is [no] constant idea of "the bear" that persists throughout"

>"[I] ultimately concluded that they [bears] were feminine"

Thoughts on Belcea's deep dive into the concept of the bear? There's a few chapters worth of bearcore but he doesn't quite explain how the concept of the nation relates to the observations above even though he states that

>"the nation "evolves" much the same way as the bear"

Are we right to believe that the concepts of nation and bear are identical as objective-centers, as noumena? Or is Belcea asserting that the both the bear and the nation were in fact observable reality and this reality changed, so the objective-center that was the point of origin now exists no longer and has become a subjective-center due to evolutionary pressures and resulting adaptation? I am leaning towards the latter

>>15859167
Lots of us have money, we just know what's actually worth spending it on.

>Lots of us have money, we just know what's actually worth spending it on.

>>15861603
t.burgerflipper who got a stimulus check

Where did all you people come from? What is this nonsense?

>>15861635
Hi horia

>>15861579
i remember skipping that chapter cause i thought he was high

>Where did all you people come from? What is this nonsense?

>>15861363
the political theory stuff is just uninterestinng. browsing 4chan means you heard pretty much all liberalism criticisim already and he doesn't say anything new.

>>15861740
>he got filtered by bears
NGMI. The synthesis of the objective-center "bear" and its subjective derivatives into the subjective-center "bear" is essential to understanding the praxis. "My faith in God had grown by now". Belcea directly attributes this to masculine thinking such as his creative inquiry into bear adaptivity.

where can anyone find him online? does he have a twitter or a youtube channel? also he should make a trip and post more often ^^

>>15861988
I hope he still sees these and didnt lose faith from first thread.

>>15861988
the last time i saw him, he single handedly demolished an entire discord channel of pseuds like Bruce Lee

>>15862037
any screencaps?

>>15861988
>does he have a twitter or a youtube channel?
Horia doesn't seem to be the social media type. I found his Facebook actually (not posting it cause not trying to dox him) and he didn't have any pictures or activity on it. IIRC he criticizes social media in his magnum opus. Maybe he reads Amazon reviews. The goodreads entry wasn't made by him, so he might not even know about it. But for all we know he shut off from the interet after his first thread.

We always hear "how Kafkaesque," "how Orwellian." How about "how Belcean" (belch-ee-un)? It is used to describe a situation in which a mob of outraged people disparage a man of superior intellect whose works surpass the common understanding, despite seeming foolish at first glance. Jesus was somewhat of a Belcean figure in history.

>>15862009
I hope so too, he seems like a nice person with interesting ideas. he needs more encouragement, but lots of people here won't even give him a chance because they're probably jealous and he reminds them of themselves or who they wish they were

>>15862037
I think he posted on /pol/ yesterday too

>>15862122
>I think he posted on /pol/ yesterday too
jesus christ SHOW US

>>15862146
http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/267797906

Does he live in the UK?

>>15861579
The bearcore sections are very Aristotelian in style. My interpretation is that objective-centers are indeed similar to noumena (thoughts that do not originate in sensual apperances)

> the objective-center that was the point of origin now exists no longer and has become a subjective-center due to evolutionary pressures and resulting adaptation
Important to note is that Belcea makes a distinction between evolution and adaptation: evolution is when the concept changes altogether (e.g. brown bear -> polar bear) and adaptation is when the bear develops smaller adaptations like bigger claws or smaller frame. During evolution, the former concept (and thus its objective-center) is destroyed in the physical plane (but not in the spiritual) and replaced with the new objective-center. During adaptation, the claws etc. are just subjective-periphery that change while the objective-center remains the same.

>>15862155
No, he doesn't. That's not him, it was people from the previous threads spamming /pol/. The OP replies are copy pasted from Belcea's original thread. There's more of them

>>15855833
Men are expendable, which is why the Russian strategy is masculine.

>>15862122
>but lots of people here won't even give him a chance because they're probably jealous and he reminds them of themselves or who they wish they were
Also lots of /lit/ people want to publish something but can never finish it presumably cause they end up hating their work or feel like it's shit. So when someone does do it, they may feel like taking out their worst nightmare on them: that of being shredded, embarrassed, and humiliated.
Also a lot of /lit/ people don't read philosophy or non-fiction, so they can't get past Belcea's style because they don't care about the ideas in there.
Also pic related shows the disappointment yet maturity of Belcea

>>15862246
Belcea posted his work, some of us were rude to him, and he left. When will he return?

>>15862186
No, in Belcea's dualism, masculinity represents creativity and thought. Hence the dynamism and adaptability of Soviet defense in depth is what makes the strategy a masculine mode. The rigidity and dependence on materiel, timetables, planning, etc. are what makes the German spearhead doctrine feminine. In WWI, the Russian military staff also followed a feminine strategy, see Taylor's War by Timetable, and perhaps this explains the difference in military outcomes.

>>15862251
I'm curious what he has been writing since. Maybe he talked about publishing, showing work to others, receiving criticism, being discouraged. Hope he publishes a part II one day

>>15862267
I understood as the Russian "masculine" approach being so because it is stalwart, immutable, and able to weather a war of attrition. The German Blitzkreig approach was more explosive, viper-like. Similarly, a woman blooms early in her life and gradually declines from there on. A male doesn't necessarily reach that same height, but maintains his excellence for most of his life.

>>15862273
Part II will be the greatest contribution to philosophy in a long time. From the premature failure begotten of optimism, to the pessimistic decline, to the triumphant, pheonix-like rise! His life will have it all, if he is so inclined.

Let's not forget many of the greats were quick to boast and full of optimism early on in their path to greatness

>Already in his investigations, Kant thought he had found “the key to the whole secret of metaphysics that had until then remained hidden to itself.” He said that he would publish the first part of “a critique of pure reason” in “approximately three months.” It ended up taking him almost ten more years to reveal the whole of that secret—a period in which he published nothing.

>>15862115
But belcean refers to ideas related to his philosophical framework

>>15862290
Yeah, that's Belcea-approved too

>>15862468
His seminal undertaking, SOS, is so broad as to encompass everything one would ever encounter in his life. His philosophical framework is the world around us; I agree with you, and I recant.

Are people trolling or not? I can't tell anymore

>>15863103
Read Belcea

I’m not fucking polish

>>15863103
>200 posts
>45 posters
Yeah it’s just the author shilling himself bud

>>15855833
>the reason is very simple, russia is a very large country

>he started with belcea

>>15863103
Trolling. Also sometimes it's very obvious it's Belcea himself shilling.

>>15857194
Hi Horia

Wait... Horia Belcea is this tranny's REAL NAME?

>>15855833
The russians just zerg rushed with endless hoardes of slavs.

>>15863621
What have you done with your life? I'd like to see you write 400 pages and get published.

>>15863748
>What have you done with your life?
I'll have you know I've been banned from 4chan for a cumulative 180+ days for sneedposting, which is a world record.

>>15863621
It's an old Romanian name.