/lit/ - Literature

>>19099426
The spectrum of things ascribed to presence mirrors this indefinite putrefaction: perfect, good, mostly good, ambiguous, good and necessarily evil, good and evil, mostly evil, necessarily evil, necessary; each Philosopher as a batch of maggots eating away a layer of dead meat, the revelation of necessity itself as unnecessary is as, or coincides with, cadaver consciousness, pure putrefaction. As above so below, indeed! I was not murdered, I have always been dead, or rather, been death. All lamentation has a common denominator hidden in plain sight, life is too this or life is too that, it is neither this nor that that constitutes the Evil of life, it is the TOO of presence. "Too long", for example, implies a normal or even preferable end of eventually reaching the breaking point of the "long", whereas the "too" alone implies a continuous end, indefinite positional asphyxia on the cross. Ontological Munchausen by proxy through and through: presence excessively provides the created absence of the implicit lack of sensory-Phenomenal input, the TOO, then excessively provides the protracted fatal overdose, also the TOO. Incidentally, perhaps this is the skeleton key of the sexes and of reproduction, a sword cast into a wound that precedes it, its extraction turning the wound inside-out, the point tearing a hole at the tip through which the "phallic" wound bleeds out, "reproducing" itself in the wake of the disappearing "yonic" sword. Regardless, just as the question of which tissue is the true one, the healthy or the traumatized, depends on whether the Subject is alive or dead in the vulgar scope, the Subject being dead in the Theological scope makes such topologies of violation true. I am an ongoing crime scene. Presence is TOO present to such a degree that it could not only be said to be hidden inside revolution, but that it implicitly abolishes revolution first and foremost by choosing it as its most exquisitely Evil locus. To briefly cut the Gnostic-Marxist-Catholic knot, I maintain that both Marxism and Capitalism are nothing but Catholicism: it is not the Ontology of the Material, of plurality, that informs the Epistemology of Dispensation, it is the Epistemology of Dispensation, of TOO much presence, that informs the Ontology of the Material. Without plurality there is no exchange, without exchange there is neither Marxism nor Capitalism, they are both animated by the fact that exchange, per the plurality of Materialism, is purportedly sanctioned by God himself, per the Catholic idea of Dispensation, per revolution itself as the obscene dimension of TOO much presence. Marxists wrongly think that the Logical inevitability of revolution is only stifled by its practical obstacles, whereas Gnostics rightly think that the practical banality of revolution is only stifled by its Logical absurdity, that that which revolution is meant to abolish not only does not oppose revolution but itself only operates in and of revolution.

>>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.

>>19099443
The scene and cadaver alike are the ever-thinning doughnut of the hole of ever-increasing pure violation, Yaldabaoth's hand, or mouth, for pejoratively ouroboric topologies, gripping his ever-growing phallus. I am sodomized into being. A foreign hand muting no mouth, my presence is my absence. Moreover, just as presence hides in Material revolution, consider that it hides in Ideal origin all the more, that the crime of the first Phenomenon is committed by the criminal that is the first Noumenon, Yaldabaoth. Just as the Black Hole of presence distinguishes itself from itself in a "truly false" way, the Hole-Sun divide destroying everything BUT itself to no end, constituting the abominable torus all by itself, the White Hole of absence coincides with itself in a "falsely true" way, there is a true unity without parts, constituting nothing; onanism vs. virginity, there is no sex. What is the relation between absence and presence? Absence is itself only when there is none. Mere lack is a red herring, another exquisitely Evil dimension of presence, another TOO. The definition of absence is totally deceiving just as the definitions of Monad and Dyad are improper and useless if limited to Number, and just as presence reveals itself to be something alien to what it seems. Both presence with no object and object with no presence are still presence, both being unilaterally determined. Neither presence nor object is still presence, the mere inversion of both presence and object, a kind of hyperdetermination whereby the destructive front line between presence and object indefinitely expands in the wake of their relative absence, this is the background of the big bang motif and rightly so, this is the most perversely false absence, a time bomb of hyperpresence, the dump from which things are recycled, the axle of the breaking wheel, the vacuum bubble of the retracting stroke of the violating phallus. Whereas absence can only be true once the fatal front line is abolished. I recall reading an article wherein Golgotha is called something to the effect of the single point of balance of the Moral scales of the world. Why point of balance? Why merely Moral? Let us be Christian: the crucifixion is the Ontological center of all things Phenomenal and Ideal. The crucifixion is the true body, the hypercadaver, the glory of Yaldabaoth. Just as there is little to no distinction between slaughterhouse and animal, natural revelation ever-closing the gap by mechanizing the beast and bestializing the machine, body and cross constitute a single Teleology, not even as two organs of the same body, but as the figurative atom.

>>19099448
Both of the supposed trees, the first one in the Ideal garden and the last one in the Phenomenal restoration, are means to the end of the crucifixion, not the other way around, a "truly false" eschatological singularity in that the eschaton is another TOO, the first and last one that eats all of its children, the merely Evil "vanishing mediators" in service of the all-pervading Evil good (1). Apropos of the idea that everything is alive, what if the nightmare also woke up? What if the breaking wheel also suffered? The trees are "oriental", nothing but bestial lethargy, fish wet with the water of torture, they do not suffer nearly enough. The crucifixion is the true body per the coincidence of substance and exhaustion, the one that most Gnostics do not even know they have to escape, the blueprint of the perverse Monism whereby the many simultaneously constitute an inane one and are enslaved by it. In this sense, why even bother with the formality of reincarnation? The hypercadaver makes "transcarnation" possible, I and everyone else as indefinitely generated by a puncture of the nail, a swing of the hammer, a thrust of the spear; indefinitely haunting the hall of mirrors of suffering as the delirium of the ever-dying man. The Catholic was right all along! This is the finality of the pejorative Monad rightly opposed by some Gnostics, but wrongly opposed through Dualism. Consider the relation between this Catholic Monad and any and all Dyads is as the relation between its presence and the aforementioned presences masquerading as absence. The phrase "Hell is separation from God" is a fragment of "separation from Yaldabaoth is also Hell": perhaps the misreading that the many constitute the One is a true reading of their misbeing in that the fate of any one of the many is to either constitute or restitute a Catholic Monad, or rather, to constitute or restitue itself therein again, or to be totally separate therefrom but suffer "total partialism", the apotheosis of being a part, the unilateral determination of the Monad being just as, if not more, present. The Catholic Monad crushing its Evil parts into one just as, further down the fractal vista, Catholic love is the perfect emotional Nihilism and Materialism in that all emotions are said to be thermodynamic fluctuations of love and, insofar as they are made Evil, to rightly resolve themselves therein; the naked causa sui. Catholics claim that you can only be saved, included, if you are wrong, indeed, this is by design. Dualism is another TOO.

>>19099457
Consider instead that the Catholic Monad can only be opposed by the Gnostic Monad, the distinction being hidden in plain sight: the body and the cross coinciding and sardonically constituting a synthesis, the two ever-forming perverse coinciding syntheses and synthesized coincidences, as from the vantage point of the Atonement, as vulgar Christianity, and the body and the cross as discrete and arelational, circumscribed by the abolishing of the fatal front line between them, as they are from the vantage point of the Victor, as the disjunctive synthesis of Gnosticism. To briefly hijack the otherwise useless idea of spacetime, consider Christological spacetime, the Atonement vs. the Victor as leaving the cross in opposite ways: the "resurrection" of the former merely rewinds the crucifixion, walking backward until its own alleged necessity forces it to return, per Catholicism, the Catholic second coming is a fragment of the Judaic hope for the Messiah, or until it stumbles backward onto another cross, per Gnosticism, all the things allegedly delivered by the Atonement being precisely those that made it allegedly necessary in the first place, the dispensed spirit being a fragment of the spirit ever-destroyed by presence, not even myopic but blind paganism, the hypercadaver "experiencing itself" as an Old Testament nightmare; whereas the "resurrection" of the latter truly dies, per Gnosticism, it is truly consummated, absent, Jesus is neither the son of Joseph nor of Yaldabaoth. Note how there is no "per Catholicism" here, the Catholic himself concedes as much, otherwise he would not have subordinated the literal "dead" in Revelation 1:18 to musing about Hell. What is hidden in plain sight in Matthew 27:46? The first layer would be that it is dark humor at the expense of the spectators, foretelling the end of Judaism as they knew it, in that they were the ones about to die forsaken by their God, the second layer would be that it is an oriental self-exorcism, dying to one's self and such, the third layer would be that it does not "mean" anything at all, it is a literal description of the Christological advent itself: Yaldabaoth moves but Jesus does not. Dying banished by death. The Atonement embedded in the Phenomenal world as the present "vanishing mediator" of a vanishing world, the Victor as the absent vanishing point of vanishing from the world, the destruction of the excrescent hole of reverse theft. Catholics say that Jesus resurrected in body and spirit, some Gnostics say that he only resurrected in spirit, others that he did not resurrect at all, whereas I not only say that he did not resurrect at all, but that it is precisely by his absence that he truly appears as triumphant and presents a vista otherwise impossible, that he resurrected in death alone, truly "the first begotten of the dead".

>>19099467
Perhaps even turning the poisoned pawn theory against the Father is not radical enough, consider that what he delivers to him is not even that but the anti-fruit, so to speak: the Catholic claims the Father and the Son as apotheoses of predator and prey, respectively, the latter being perfect by willing giving itself to the former, but what if the Victor distinguishes itself from the Atonement not by doing the opposite of what is commanded but by doing a fatal excess thereof? "Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Does the Father's glorifying not require a parallel self-glorifying of the Son? No, but yes, per Yaldabaoth, the Atonement being that which secretly makes the ouroboros superconductive by indefinite dying. Yes, but no, per Jesus, the Victor being that which makes the ouroboros bite its own mouth by singular death. In actual death, absence, Yaldabaoth is most earnestly "glorified", consider that the Father and Son being one and the same has the most fatal meaning, that what leers back at the former in the latter's absence is another Father, that the latter is a mirror so perfect that the reflection comes to life. It, Yaldabaoth, is consummated. What if the meta-absence I speak of is yet another TOO? No, is there even a meta-presence, "as thou wilt"? This is where the "spark" is. The "spark" of vulgar Gnosticism is Catholic ascription, a vector for depurating the absurdity of grace, the Gnostic reading reveals that it does not even exist unless the literally schizophrenic detonation of rending the hypercadaver by separating body and cross not so much "creates what it returns to" but destroys what it departs from. Jesus Christ, from bee to wasp: is it not curious that the alleged self-giving of the Catholic Jesus is a guise for the one thing that he deprives everyone else of, literal Christianity? That Catholic Christianity is as the single sting of a bee, only accessible to, and spent in and of, one individual, who happens to be said to coincide with the Father, the alleged reconciliation being an act of even greater hostility, an Evil good? Whereas the Gnostic Jesus is truly and radically self-giving in that he only gives literal Christianity and nothing else, the multiple sting of a wasp as others' death and entrance into literal Christianity. Is this not what "thou wilt"? Gnosis as an autopsy (seeing for one's self) only possible from within the dead body of Christ, from the vantage point of being literally Christian. The Eucharist not as the vulgarity of Catholic dessert, but as starvation and/or poison toward death. In the realization that death is the Christological advent one figuratively eats the cadaver and is pervaded by terminal despair. Can God make an Evil so Evil that he cannot hide it? Can God hate and kill a man such that he cannot revive him? Can God debase himself such that he cannot glorify himself? Finally, some good news. In this sense, why figuratively?

>>19099476
There is a Scriptural curiosity pertaining to the Eucharist in that Jesus describes its alleged literal nature and effectiveness BEFORE his execution. Taking the Catholic for his word, if the Eucharist is effective before the execution then it is not necessary for him to die, if the description was mere metaphor then the whole Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is wrong. Of course, the Catholic is implicitly against Scripture, the point being that PRESENCE OBSCURES MEANING: the Catholic synthesis of the presence of the last supper, the presence of the execution, and the presence of their current Scriptural order is the prominent obscurantism, he is, again, the only one guilty of everything that he accuses the Gnostic of, this synthesis is the fabled "secret knowledge", the presence of a mysteriously harmonizing fourth element, what the Catholic thinks "thou wilt"; whereas the Gnostic disjunctive synthesis takes all three as true and superimposes them as such, rending the hypercadaver, exactly as "thou wilt", even the a priori disjunctive synthesis that presence obscures meaning literally partakes in the synthesis no more or no less than that which it synthesizes. Note how the forsaking and the death are similarly out of order. The real presence is false. This is the only way in which the Eucharist can be literal, bilateral transubstantiation of dying into death, abolishing our mutual presence. It takes one to know one. Amnesis as the advent of anamnesis: Christians as death pangs leaving Jesus. Another disjunctive synthesis opposing another Catholic obscurantism pertains to the Trinity. Just as the exclusive purpose of each iteration of Materialism is to cover the embarrassment of the previous one, the Catholic "endlessly knowing the mystery" of the Trinity appears to be endlessly embarrassing. All members are Yaldabaoth: the Father and Son are Yaldabaoth duplicated or split in half (same difference) and the Spirit is Yaldabaoth as he "was" prior to the Christological advent. This is the true face of the Catholic Trinity, Yaldabaoth choking on his meta-presence, both the classic extreme and the "Hegelian" (Zizekian) extreme (both Father and Son die toward truly dispensing the Spirit), and, moreover, the latter is, in fact, an even stronger and less legitimate monarchy of the Father. Just as a "real" world is impotent in being fundamentally knowable, changeable, and destructible through quantitative means, and an "illusory" world is irresistibly strong in being fundamentally unknowable, immutable, and indestructible through qualitative means, Yaldabaoth is at his worst when being a ghost, moreover, one projecting from his slaves' eyes, as the truly dispensed Spirit. Perhaps this is whence one might best realize the transgression of the Christological suicide.

>>19099484
If anything, this is the implicit Trinity "preceding" the Christological advent, not only a Monarchy of the Father, but one where he comes down from his transcendent throne for something much worse, to rule from the inside-out, each subject implicitly sodomized into being, just as the members of the Trinity itself are nothing but inert receptacles for the Father's sodomy. Yaldabaoth biting his own mouth, splitting in half, and forced to be his own vampire in the absence of his hypercadaver. Indeed, the Catholic rightly concludes that Yaldabaoth needs me, and this is precisely why I reject him. Conversely, the Gnostic disjunctive synthesis of the Monadic father and the Sophianic mother is the very absence into which Jesus disappears. Another Catholic obscurantism is the opposition to "mind-body Dualism", mind-body coincidence in body at one extreme and literal Materialism (an aspect of Catholicism first and foremost) at the other, the common denominator of the opposition being a curious ritual murder of that which the murderer claims does not exist. Vulgar Gnosticism would reply with a symmetrical idea wherein the mind-body coincidence is all mind per Subjective Idealism and such, whereas Gnostic Gnosticism would realize that the obscurantism is not so much about mind being put to death, but about absence being murdered to life. The blueprint of Theosis, that metal receives the properties of fire without becoming fire, is most relevant here: the body receives the properties of absence without becoming absent through the ritual murder of the mind. I only reject the idea that the body traps the soul because it does not go far enough, it is the true, of "truly false", mind-body coincidence that attempts to trap absence, the aforementioned presences masquerading as absence being a "like" attempting to know a "like", and, moreover, to pervert it into the ultimate Ideal origin as Yaldabaoth's most exquisitely Evil locus. What if it could actually be yesterday or tomorrow rather than indefinitely today? Per Vulgar Gnosticism, the present is crucified, the two cones of past-future telescopically expanding therefrom and touching bases therein, the tips being dead ends of utter incomprehension, constituting the delirium of Time as superfluous to the coherent present; whereas per Gnostic Gnosticism, the points touch in the present, the bases being "living ends" of utter comprehension purporting absence itself as part of the aforementioned Black torus, as alleviating the delirium of the indefinite present and presence.

>>19099495
By the Christological suicide, the torus is cut in half, past-future is no longer fodder for the indefinite onanism of today, the "falsely true" Yesterday and Tomorrow are resurrected to death after being murdered to life, the dead Jesus participating in the synthesis of the Monadic father and the Sophianic mother inasmuch as they are synthesized without him, and without each other, not as the Catholic perfidy of "vanishing mediator" but as earnestly participating by coinciding that in which he participates with that by which he participates, absence. Again, is this not claiming that meta-absence is subordinate to meta-presence just as the aforementioned presences masquerade as absence? Perhaps it is the fabled asymmetry, allegedly necessary to end necessity, that is the Antichrist, that, in a truly Christian way, necessity implicitly contains its perfectly symmetrical unnecessity which, far from locking both in an indefinite Dualism, per vulgar Gnosticism, is actually symmetrical in that it is just as fatal as necessity, one spark, the Christ, is all it takes to detonate it. Yaldabaoth's Ontological power itself becoming mere wishful thinking. More to the point that nothing less than despair qualifies as Gnosticism: the Christological advent is less than irrelevant, Catholic, if one thinks that the Demiurgic incontinence is anything but Evil and that good can exist in the classic sense. Death not as transmigration or transformation but the White Hole now opening in the absence of the Black Cube. What distinguishes all of this from Buddhism, whether vulgar or not? Is absence not Nirvana? No, in fact, I maintain that it is actually Pleroma. Curiously, Pleroma is mired in more vulgar crypto-Numeric, crypto-Catholic, definitions than "Monad" or "One", more to the point that Gnosticism stands alone against Platonism, Hermetism, Kabbalah, Zoroastrianism, etc. just as it stands against Catholicism. Taking a tremendous analytic shortcut: there is no relation between sex and climax. This is tacitly conceded by the analysts most of all, the latter being an assassin haunting the analytic edifice of the former, all sexual structures therein are deliberately built from the outside-in, so much so the sex defined thereby becomes synonymous with the refraction of light, the architecture of football stadiums, the insertion of ballots into urns; utter nonsense. The inside-out analysis is fatal, the intermediate vulgar layer would be something to the effect of onanism being the true ouroboric sexuality and such, but the properly inside-out analysis, one that begins with the climax, reveals something much more radical: climax is subsumed by virginity and sex is subsumed by onanism, there is only virginity and onanism, no sex.

>>19099503
Reproduction, as the end of outside-in sex, is reproduction of onanism, onanism between more than one person, the mere fragmentation of onanism as a pittance of distinction therefrom; the alleged reproductive "laws" or "instincts" and their fulfillment even being identical to onanistic compulsion in their vacillation between moral deontology and utilitarian consequentialism, claiming one as exclusively true whenever the other is called into question, this too being onanistic. Whereas the climax is a true vantage point into an absence, of sex, of course, since it does not exist, but also into its own absence, toward virginity as analogous with the coincidence of absence and plenitude, of pleasure with its own abolishing. In this sense, the vulgar Pleroma would be the sexual, onanistic, Pleroma of "One is all", and the Gnostic Pleroma would be the climactic, virgin, Pleroma of "One is nothing", the White Hole coinciding with itself. Since one is precluded from being that by being this and from being this by being that, it follows that being both of them would mean being neither of them, and that being all of them would mean being nothing at all, "One is all" even being all but synonymous with "substance is exhaustion". The abomination of accepting all the kingdoms of the world and truly being the son of Yaldabaoth, exhausted without remainder. An exegesis of Nirvana as Anatta. But is Anatta Nirvana? Perhaps this is where the asymmetry is, not as an obscene dimension of symmetry, but just as discrete and arelational as absence. If Nirvana to Anatta is the vista of the Ontological banquet only possible from the vantage point of the main course, what is Anatta to Nirvana? "One is nothing" allows not only a remainder but the otherwise impossible finality of "One is One". Walking two miles, going even further than the coincidence of the Monadic father and Sophianic mother as the mere coincidence of the One and the Virgin, consider the individual coincidences of the One and the One and of the Virgin and the Virgin: the Monad's Monad not only has no Dyad but IS no Dyad in that it does not touch itself so as to avoid constituting its own intra-Monadic Dyad, similarly, the Virgin's Virgin not only has no sex but IS no sex in that it does not touch itself so as to avoid constituting its own onanistic organ; they are only each other by being nothing but themselves, "One is nothing" neither as the One apocryphally becoming nothing, which would violate the "One" in the phrase, nor as the One abiding in nothing, which would violate the "is", but as the literal coincidence of One being itself and being nothing, of plenitude and absence. The White Hole does not even enter itself. Again, is this a crypto-oriental maneuver to turn the intra-Subjective light off? No.

>>19099508
Consider that the soul must escape from the soul first and foremost, its escape from the body being secondary, they would otherwise constitute the prominent cursed relation, the house built on top of the burial ground. Yet another Catholic obscurantism pertains to salvation: either the inextricably sinful pre-salvation Subject totally coincides with the post-salvation Subject, bringing sin and sinfulness into Heaven and making it an abomination, or the two Subjects are distinct, contradicting Catholic doctrine. The point being that contiguity, mutual presence, is the fatal front line of indefinite dying whereby death cannot be attained, that this line bisects the very Subject, the Subject's light being continuously on constitutes the very indefinite dying. Consider that PRESENCE HAS A MONOPOLY OF YOU. "And so he dwells either in this world or in the resurrection or in the middle place. God forbid that I be found in there!" This is what is hidden in plain sight in Plato's Parmenides, that Forms are incompatible with Phenomena is precisely the point, contiguity is abolished: there is neither a "coincidence" of Forms and Phenomena in and of Phenomena, per the Catholic "mind-body coincidence", nor a sodomy of Phenomena by Forms, per vulgar Idealism, the point being that Forms' disappearance up one cognitive vista is precisely their yonic truth as such whereby one is unborn, Reasoned out of the world, so to speak. Intra-Subjective absence as fatally wounding the "Hegelian" wound. Death Grips' "murdered out windows" phrase is most relevant here: Leibniz says that "monads have no windows through which anything can enter in or pass out", consider that nothing precedes Jesus Christ except Yaldabaoth, that the intra-Subjective wound is precisely such a window, the hypercadaver, that the Christological suicide not so much mends the Monads by killing the wound, but makes the Monads themselves absent such that windows are abolished by abolishing walls first and foremost. The final victory of the neither and the nor touching without contiguity being the very "immaculate conception" whereby Jesus unbirths himself into, and coincides with, the coincidence of the Monadic father and Sophianic mother. Let us be cataphatically apophatic and say that nothing happens in Heaven. Things would truly last forever if only they had never been.

1: >>/lit/thread/S18737969

what

didn't read

Will read it tomorrow, thank you anon.

>>19099426
>a Gnostic reading of Gnosticism
your proses sir... they flow...

>>19099426
>being itself is evil
Top kek. This is what gnosticism does to a mf

>>19099426
>>19099430
>>19099443
>>19099448
>>19099457
>>19099467
>>19099476
>>19099484
>>19099495
>>19099503
>>19099508
>>19099516
TLDR: Pseud: The thread

OP pls save this to a doc, so you can read it in a year and laugh and cringe at it.

>>19099426

Truth is an arrow and the gate is narrow that it passes through

He unleashed His power at an unknown hour that no one knew

How long can I listen to the lies of prejudice?

How long can I stay drunk on fear out in the wilderness?

Can I cast it aside, all this loyalty and pride?

Will I ever learn that there’ll be no peace, that the war won’t cease

Until He returns?
Surrender your crown on this blood-stained ground, take off your mask

He sees your deeds, He knows your needs even before you ask

How long can you falsify and deny what is real?

How long can you hate yourself for the weakness you conceal?

Of every earthly plan that be known to man, He is unconcerned

He’s got plans of His own to set up His throne

When He returns

>>19099836

You too can read it next year and not understand it, every year.

>>>/lit/thread/S18829460#p18835415

I did say I would include an analysis of Pi but the more I wrote, the less fitting it seemed. Will post it separately, either as an addendum or as its own thread. Going to bed now, entertain yourselves for 12 or so hours.

>>19099426
bump

>>19100324
>Going to bed now,
see you tomorrow

>>19101727
this thread is pretty high IQ. I hope OP writes more and explains his ideas further

>>19102829

I deliberately kept it as short as possible. Explaining sucks.

Will post excerpts from Baudrillard's Fatal Strategies to keep the thread alive until you put your bongs down.

>>19103830

One of his most cogent passages.

>>19104325

>>19100324

Addendum:

Recall the Pi scene where Max drills a hole in his head, what is the excrescence he drills into? If shaving his head is Mathematics, if his bare head is the Universe as earnestly "made of Numbers", then the excrescence is the very Subject, Max himself. The Subject exposed as an excrescence on the surface of the "Objective" world, simultaneously calling into question both the Subject and the world, pure malignant contiguity draining both of them of their alleged harmonious status, just as pure Mathematics is most removed from "Objectivity" and is likewise a kind of pure contiguity between two cadavers. The drilling being a fatal excess of crucifixion, crucifying the excrescence crucified onto his head, the excess itself perhaps being an orthogonal anti-contiguity "between" two deaths ending the two cadavers. Far from being a Catholic circumcision of the intellect, the scene exquisitely Gnostic, Max points at Yaldabaoth with his whole body.

>>19104731

>>19105198

>>19105868

>>19099426
Hey, are you "schizoposter"? Is this the new format? I miss those threads

>>19106679

I'm not the wojak guy.

>>19106436

>>19099426
>Why do things end?
stopped right fucking there, things don't end buddy. they simply change shape.

>>19107061