/lit/ - Literature

>>18852364
They stripped that idea straight from WH40k.

>>18852364
so loosh is adrenochrome?

The Gnostics were right about everything.

>>18852364
>There you have it, Monroe, Castaneda and many others agree
>Only cities Monroe
Why are /x/ fags such lazy, confirmation bias hacks?

Source: A light being told me.

>>18852401
Told you what? I'm listening.

>>18852392
Castaneda wrote about this in several books
There are other sources but they're less well-known and usually taken less seriously

>>18852392
>>18773770

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

>>18852954
Why those two

>>18852364
Mantak Chia: Taoist master of butthole flexing and scrotum massaging nofap

>>18853050
What does the transmutation of sexual energy have to do with all this?

What role do electricity (notably power lines) and gravity play in the pain matrix control system? This may sound like a schizo question but I see those two things come up over and over again

>>18852954

They're the most Gnostic public persons today.

>>18853510
How is Zizek a gnostic?

>>18852954
>so when you said "there won't be one for all who deny the struggle the triumphant overcome" did you hide your tracks from the "fellow" occultists as well as the normies by only ostensibly placing yourself among the triumphant but actually placing yourself among those who deny the struggle thereby subverting both fates of the world and affirming a far more radical individuation also hinted at many times elsewhere in the song such as in "to glorify and for life adorn with all that dies to become unborn" not to mention the quality of the subversion whereby you triumphantly claim yourself immobile and tomorrow mobile and...
>y-yeah you too

>>18853581

His serious lectures, articles, and books are very different from the material responsible for the memes. For example:

https://www.lacan.com/symptom16/kant.html

>>18852364
Ever read Wes Penre Papers? Top tier cosmic war material. He goes deeper than anyone Ive found on this kind of subject.

>>18853634
Quick rundown?
I read the trickedbythelight website which mentions Wes Penre iirc, is it the same info?

>>18853590
Zizek's work - particularly his Lacanian reading of Hegel, the pathological split at the heart of God, the positivized Void... all this stuff has great gnostic resonances, but Zizek himself detests Gnosticism.

>>18853510
I wouldn't call one of them particularly "public", but I think Sloterdijk and Laruelle are the real contemporary Gnostics of our time, as far as high theory is concerned

>>18853686
>as far as high theory is concerned
As opposed to what?

Do Gnostics generally believe in a personal afterlife? Since they resent the idea of assimilation, can it be said gnosticism is the least annihilationist doctrine?

>>18853648
Never read trickedbyight but it seems to be more self-help oriented where Penre deals more with 'history' of the intergalactic colonization of Earth and the prison planet slavery system. Mostly his interpretation of ancient texts mixed with channeling. Fairly interesting and well researched but dont take it all at face value

https://wespenrepapershome.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/wespenrefourthleveloflearningentirelevel-papers1-17andappendixpapera031014-1.pdf

>>18853692
As opposed to the visionaries who keep to themselves.

>>18853698
Yes, annihilationism is about the drop returning to the ocean, while Gnostics are interested in condensing the ocean into the drop. Instead of being eaten by the World, they prefer to eat It.

>>18853706
>condensing the ocean into the drop
What does this actually mean and entail? I'm having a hard time imagining it. Dissolution into god on the other hand is fairly simple to picture.

>>18853699
Is it the same stuff talked about in Brett Stuart's moksha video?
At this point the specific reasons don't interest me as much as the actual methods we can use to get out

>>18853712
You don't let yourself be engulfed by the programs of the World - you don't feed the Economy, the State, the Church, God, Humanity, etc. with your energy, since the highest Universals are just the most successful vampires. Every idealization is an internalized vampirism.

you have to let go of monotime, monoculture, and see the world instead as the field and occasion for countless salvation histories, NOT a Whole slowly rising out of the depths of the dialectical bone hill.

>>18853719
Look youre probably not going to escape the loosh farm by expecting to be spoonfed the truth about these complex issues. Everything you need to know about this system is already there within your unconscious mind.

>>18853738
>You don't let yourself be engulfed by the programs of the World
Is it just me or is this similar to what Stirner wrote about? Is the gnostic way a kind of egoist individuation?
>see the world instead as the field and occasion for countless salvation histories
What does this imply for the abrahamic view of linear eschatology?
Regarding the opposition to the Whole, gnosticism is completely anti-Hegelian then?
The end goal of annihilationists is for their individuality to dissolve inside the nondual ocean of the One by realizing their existence is illusory; for Gnostics, is the goal a kind of solipsistic realization that the world, dreamt by the individual, is entirely contained within him, or something like that? Is there multiplicity in the Pleroma?

>>18853670

I know, many things to say: you can only be a true Gnostic if you disagree with the "tradition", Gnosticism doesn't actually exist and is just Catholic ascription, etc.

>>18853763

Thread about this very question coming "soon". In the meantime consider that the perverse description of rest and motion is akin to the perverse description of absence and presence.

>>18853763
Buddhism, Stirner's egoism, Gnosticism, all these systems and moods of thought agree on one thing: not becoming the bitch of your appendages, their mindless stake in the world. Your mind, your body, the economy of energy within you and outside you - these are forces that prey on you, just as you prey on your own body (or else no human being has ever known addiction/the death drive - what is addiction but the soul destroying the body to wring every last drop of dopamine juice out of it?).

>What does this imply for the abrahamic view of linear eschatology?

it completely upends it.

no gnosticism is not a pure solipsism, it is the recognition that there is a world and you are caught in it like a trap, but the immanence to yourself which affords you the consciousness of this trap... is already the means of escape. there is an objectivity out there that has you by the balls, but there is a knowledge that separates without being inscribed into this objectivity. the World is both the thing escaped from and the means used to escape.

>>18853763
I'll give you niggas a sneak peek on what I've been working on:

Gnosticism and the production of a tellurium

You exist with a power that makes (that which is possible for) existence exist

An (S)OS with an omphalic contrail...

We're not saying: we created the universe (solipsism)

Or that the universe conspired to create us (existentialism; consciousness "thrown up" out of the random play of matter, instead of being thrown INTO that matter)

But everyone at a certain stage of development joins this universe in creating it

That all pneumatic boltzmann brains converge on a pedagogical tellurium, while all hylic boltzmanns converge on a feast.

>>18853763
Finally, yes: there is multiplicity in the Pleroma, in each and every account, from Mani to Valentinus.

>>18853763
Gnosticism is anti-Hegelian because it's anti-semitic. The enemy of every Gnostic is the so-called self-sufficiency of Thought, the heuristic demonism that human beings inflict on one another and the world.

>>18853804
>>18853824
>tfw I'm too retarded to really understand most of this
I'm reading Lacarriere and then Jonas, I hope I'll get it eventually, but you people and your tailor-made exegeses that you use to construct such a personal and abstract understanding of reality are making me feel like I'm missing a lot of crucial information. I'm struggling to understand what you're even talking about, maybe I'm just a brainlet.
I understand the basics at least, regarding the rejection of the world, but the more complex and high level ideas elude me. For example, if gnosticism is not solipsistic,
>it completely upends it.
Is it accurate to say that while abrahamism has a singular eschatology that makes everything converge towards it in time, gnosticism has as many eschatologies as there are individuals who seek to escape? Is the implication that there is no centralized soteriological principle but rather a multitude of individual paths?
>the means used to escape
Simon the Magician used carnal acts as a way to liberation, is that what you mean?

>>18853056
Loosh control and cultivation but not yet reaping

>>18853886
You're not a brainlet, I'm just dumping my own system onto you because I don't know how else to say it.

>does gnosticism have as many eschatologies as individuals?
Yes, in fact, as many "Reals" as there are individuals: the point is not to think of the human being as an ape, a subject, an immaterial soul, but a Real. Just as I am something "for" the World in a vulgar sense (a wagecuck, cannon fodder, a fuckhole to fags, an energy gradient for my masters), so is the World something "for" me on my side (hence: In the World, but not of It) - and in the end, there is only my side, which is why the Archons are typically visualized as insects, worms, parasites: Archons are tapeworms of the Soul; they are the World as it pilots you from the inside.

>Simon the Magician used carnal acts as a way to liberation, is that what you mean?
Not the sense I meant, but not off the mark either. The rest of your post is on point.

Look up "Basilides and the Political Implications of Negative Theology". It's a .pdf. Clean, simple, and straightforward exposition of the parasite doctrine.

>>18853931
>I'm just dumping my own system onto you
My impression is that the biggest step of the path is the construction of a coherent personal system. What helped you build yours?
>in fact, as many "Reals" as there are individuals
I'm assuming you don't mean this in a nominalist sense since gnostic metaphysics regardless of the historical sect borrow from platonism, so to paraphrase what you said and make sure I understand: the key is perspective, and so instead of viewing individuals from the perspective of the world, as nondescript entities contained within it, the point is to reverse the perspective, which makes the individual's perception a kind of vantage point for his personal reality? Instead of having a theocentric doctrine, the perspective is shifted to make myself the center of it all?
>"Basilides and the Political Implications of Negative Theology".
Thank you, I will. My reading list for now, after Lacarriere and Jonas, includes Sloterdijk, Laruelle, Jung and Serrano. Are there others you would recommend I add on to the list of contemporary gnostics worth exploring?

>>18852954
>>18853510

Speaking of which, Object A reference? I would say no if it was any other band.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep0GX7TiWa8
>I don't return until the day Sad A validates
>Mankind's destiny in a worm

>>18853985
>My impression is that the biggest step of the path is the construction of a coherent personal system. What helped you build yours?

I read like a fiend and tried to contextualize what made so much sense about Gnosticism with what also made so much sense about the philosophy I'd been reading prior. All in service to my intuition of Good and Evil, a warrior ethos in the abstract if not in practice.

I wouldn't say so much making yourself the "center", in even a vulgar spiritual sense, but realizing there's no self-consistent, self-sufficient objective field out there that's keeping a tally on anything, only the free, "beautiful and terrible" play of vortices, singularities, parasitic suns... Remove yourself from the "horizontality" of the world and the lust for (self-)disclosure. In layman's terms, get rid of the objective clock, history is irredeemable, there is no metalanguage that redeems brute reality of suffering... Okay that's not in very layman terms. Just worry only about your clock, your soul, not the soul of a big Other.

It's clear you've been following my recs, I'm the guy who spams the same reading list. I don't like to, it's a little cultish, but it'll do for now.

I would save Laruelle for last. He will be nothing to you without a thorough grounding in not only this stuff, but philosophy in general.

And yes, Nimrod de Rosario, Shestov, and Weil. Shestov, in particular, militates against Necessity and defends a God of Absolute Contingency, a kind of divine virtual particle infiltrating the quantum God-system...

Not contemporary, but modern. And for the love of God, don't skip Jung's 7 Sermons of the Dead.

Do NOT neglect Marcion. Harnack's book on Marcion is fantastic.

Also: David Lindsay, A Little World Made Cunningly, and le Guin's Those Who Walk Away From Omelas.

The hermeticists thought liberation could not be attained without the mastery of astral projection and the construction of a light body through spiritual alchemy. The vajrayanin buddhists had similar views and devised specific practices that involved dreams, visualization and astral projection in order to orient oneself appropriately while in the death state as to avoid samsara.
Do you guys think there's something to it? I've seen this book pop up occasionally and it seems to tackle these subjects so I'm going to read it and report back if I find it insightful.

>>18854033
>my intuition of Good and Evil
What do you make of the beauty and good that can be found in the world, are they to be rejected as only pale imitations of the Pleroma, or appreciated as rare sparks of goodness in a fallen world?
>there's no self-consistent, self-sufficient objective field out there
>there is no metalanguage
I mean that does sound like a highly nominalist view, which I'm not particularly opposed to but I'll have to think about it more.
I get the "only worry about you" part at least.
>I'm the guy who spams the same reading list.
It seems like a good list, I assumed Lacarriere would be a dry exposition of the history of gnostic sects but the writing is visceral and personal on another level from any theological treatise I've ever read before.
I didn't know Weil had gnostic sensibilities.
>Shestov
I remember his name popping up a couple years ago in a thread where some guy claimed he was a neognostic philosopher whose take on salvation was identical to CHIM from elder scrolls lore, i.e. realizing reality is a demiurgic dream and escaping from it to create your own reality dream instead of dissolving into nothingness.
>don't skip Jung's 7 Sermons of the Dead.
Right, I forgot about that one. Do you recommend Jung in general, or just the Seven Sermons?
I appreciate the recommendations, thanks again.

>>18853999

>Canopy of corpse tree, branches loom above me
>Vacuum of crushing, doom lies before me
>My future dies behind me, my entry aborts me
>I lean back and drill me, like on me I'm feeding
>I'm starving, I hardly ever feel like being

>I crash on bed of nails in my frail suit of scabs i relax
>While having seizures in my shack
>I take no breather, I took the pact
>I grind this stone into my path
>I wait for you in this disguise
>Remorselessly beyond alive
>Beyond alive

>>18854129
My views aren't threatened by beauty and goodness. For one, I never hated the stars and sun and plants and animals, I hated what was done to them (even the stars are being occluded by the cities; light pollution is satanic).

Think of it this way: a proper awareness of the Mixture sees only figures interacting in an occasional medium, not figures SET AGAINST a common ground (which in Abrahamic circles demands a theodicy). The medium we find Good and Evil in... is the occasion for their interaction, it is not Good and Evil which themselves "bubble up" out of some monistic ungrund.

It is easier for me to see and recognize Good than it is for those who need a fully constituted World.

It is nominalist in the sense that there's no metalanguage of UNIVERSALS that can redeem suffering. You, yourself, are your own language and metalanguage, it's why Laruelle says the "transcendental night" of which man is a clone comes baked-in with its OWN tools of illumination, a black light gnosis, it does and should not depend on the World to illuminate it... the Savior saves Himself (if you're not a Marcionite)

>Shestov
Yes, that guy was me lol. Laruelle and Shestov have a lot to say to each other: both refuse the "consensual" or "democratized" vision of the World = Necessity.

Just Jung's Seven Sermons, the rest of Jung is too simplistic for me now. But if you're just starting out, he's great, just take the integrationism (muh reconciliation of good and evil) with a grain of salt. We're here to effect a SEPARATION, not a reconciliation.

>>18854198
>an occasional medium
Does that medium have inherent existence? Or should it be understood more as a process, self-existent only insofar as it allows a relationship between Good and Evil to take place? I guess that's not a very important question, but I've been looking into process philosophy lately and wondering if it can be reconciled with gnosticism, since Good and Evil are generally described as monads.
> there's no metalanguage of UNIVERSALS that can redeem suffering.
Are the Aeons not considered universals? Maybe I'm confused here but I thought Barbelo and other emanations of the True God represented immutable principles.
At this point I understand salvation is a purely individual affair and that the "toolbox" so to speak is personal rather than universal, though I haven't worked out the implications of this yet. But I'm struggling to see how this ties in with the Aeons.
>the Savior saves Himself
What's your view on Christ?
>that guy was me
You've been posting about this stuff for quite some time, do you have a blog or something?
>too simplistic
Have you read the Red Book, Aion and his alchemical writings?
>integrationism
The shadow is still a part of the individual, is it not? Is the individuation process in jungian psychology not the purification of the shadow through integration rather than the acceptance of evil?

>>18852455
What's the verdict on Castaneda, hack or legitimate insights?

>>18854276
It's precisely the extent to which this field or medium attains an autonomy adequate to itself that Evil acquires its own positive reality. I am with Laruelle and Zizek on this one: Evil is a hostile Universality, only from the perspective of the demiurge-program could the willfulness of the individual ever qualify as the root of Evil (Schelling might have something to say about that, but let's not go there now).

I would be wary of overly Platonizing the Aeons. Benjamin Walker is useful here: at the Horos, the final cosmic veil and absolute limit of the Kenoma, the light of the Aeons shines through: not as "ideas" or logical operators, but true blue archetypal images.

Let's see if I can contextualize this for you: all things possess their truth radically, immanently. Thought can only come after and adorn that truth. Everything is true, immediately given without any fuss, like a God is. It's only when you become dialectically or "topologically" habituated to reality (because there's no Hegel without Kant) that everything becomes ho-hum and Truth's center of gravity drifts toward the world.

I do not have a blog. My views on Christ are Marcion's: with Christ, something radically new was born in the heart of history. I'll use this formula to sum it up, which I just happened to read last night: the true Christ does not call us home after wandering in a foreign land, it is rather that he calls us to a blessed foreign land from our true (and evil) home.

The shadow is a part of me only insofar as I am the medium or occasion of its co-habitation with light. Think of the human being less as some articulated, divine assemblage, and more like a sausage: all that gunk inside is only held together by the skin, the boundary or membrane of reflexion which happened to gather it up and which holds it together so long as I'm breathing.

I have not read most of Jung's other work.

And don't worry about Aeons, I don't think about them. To me they are just searingly beautiful spirit-galaxies waiting for me in a place I have to create first.

>>18854367
So evil is a kind of corruption that of the medium? Is it inevitable then, can there be no monadic good without the apparition of evil at some point?
Our conversation reminds me of pic related which I thought was an interesting way to schematize the creation of the kenoma.
>not as "ideas" or logical operators, but true blue archetypal images.
>searingly beautiful spirit-galaxies waiting for me in a place I have to create first.
This seems to imply that they transcend logic or at least are ineffable, not graspable rationally, and inherently tied to individual subjectivity (since you call them archetypes).
>all things possess their truth radically, immanently.
It's still somewhat vague but I trust that I'll become able to narrow it down and understand it better as I keep reading more about the subject. Intuitively I kind of get it but I worry about misinterpreting your words by projecting my own beliefs onto them and missing the point as a result.
>he calls us to a blessed foreign land from our true (and evil) home.
What makes you think the kenoma is our true home? Isn't the fact that we yearn for something more, and reject this world, proof that we do not belong here?
>Think of the human being less as some articulated, divine assemblage, and more like a sausage
Yeah, I get it. Going back to the individuation process, are you therefore in favor of destroying the shadow, or subduing it in some way?

>>18854454
I wouldn't say it's a corruption OF the medium, as much as it is the medium itself.

>What makes you think the kenoma is our true home?

There's some wiggle room on this point, but there's just a radicality to Marcion's faith that I can't really dismiss.

I am in favor of eliminating the Shadow, castrating the will-to-life which is nothing but the hunger to fuck, murder, and consume at its root. If I cannot take in what is outside me into myself, then I will destroy it, or I will fuck it. That the will can abolish itself just goes back to that paradoxicality I was talking about.

Aeons are not the archetypes of myself, or any collective unconscious, but the archetypes pre-existing any possible ontology. Jung's archetypes are thoroughly ontic, Aeons are thoroughly non-ontological.

>>18854504
>as much as it is the medium itself.
Can good exist without said medium?
>castrating the will-to-life
Through extreme asceticism?
I don't really get how you can have non-ontological archetypes since my understanding of the term is that we call archetypal whichever principles underlie a particular ontological model.

>>18854521
>Can good exist without said medium?

It can only and truly exist without it. And that is supposed to be the Pleroma, or at least the non-ontological "light" that the heretic of non-philosophy, deprived of any footing in the world, must content himself with.

>I don't really get how you can have...

There are systems, worlds, phenomenalisations, conditions... outside this one. That's what I meant by everything possessing its truth radically and immanently: the sun is ho-hum to you because you're an adult, but to a child... Train yourself to see this reality in the same way, and you'll get a sense of just how much bigger it is possible for the World as such to be. The Archons work by limiting your vision, contracting the possible onto what's actual until there's no remainder, until they overlap, and even until possibility shrinks further and there's only the horizon of a total and absolute slavery...

>>18854563
>There are systems, worlds, phenomenalisations, conditions... outside this one
Oh, I think I get it now.
This conversation has helped clarify quite a few things, thank you friend.

>>18854580
Enjoy the readings.

>>18853097
>electricity
EMF, even at low levels like those we're constantly in contact with via modern technology, may cause stress in the body, releasing loosh.
No idea about gravity. It may be another psyop upholding the globe/space lie. It may be that gravity is fake and all things rise or fall based on relative density (and so things in a vacuum fall at the same rate because they're both infinitely more dense than zero, but things in air fall at different rates based on their densities).

>>18855117
is it possible to completely stop releasing loosh?
is that the key to escape?

>>18855306
I'm an idiot that knows nothing but here's my stab in the dark:
>avoid stressful situations (in relationships, at work, etc.)
>avoid environmental stressors like EMF
>process traumas and resolve the stress you're holding in your mind and body. Journal and talk to others (or a therapist) for mental stress. Do TRE (Trauma Release Exercises) and massage (find a knowledgeable strong male masseuse who can tell you exactly where you're holding the stress and how to sooth it) for the bodily stress.
>be motivated by love rather than hate
>keep God in your mind and heart (not the evil god of the jews)
>love and cherish your family and friends
>deal honorably with your peers and acquaintances

>>18852364
The most valuable meat has been treated humanly or luxuriously (Waygu Kobe A5).

Is gnosticism necessarily ascetic?

>>18853706
I'm still conflicted on whether or not this world truly is irredeemable, sure it's rotten and predicated on suffering, but there are a lot of good things here, so I'm not sure the whole world should be rejected wholesale. And this sounds faggy as shit but some forms of painful experiences are not that unpleasant, I don't know if I'd like a world where there isn't a certain amount of bittersweetness or longing, paradoxically I feel like there might be something lacking in the ultimate perfection religions advertise