/lit/ - Literature

>>20413208
Nietzsche is the only one worth a damn there

>>20413220
Who would you recommend reading?

>>20413208
lol u fell for /lit/ memes hard

>>20413285
And now I can fall for more.
Who should I be reading?

>>20413220
Foucault is the non-larper version of nietzsche

>>20413208
Any one but Nietzsche really.

>>20413303
He’s the sexuality and justice system version of Nietzsche. Nietzsche is more of a “break out of your shell” guy, hence why he’s popular with a certain subsection of people. Nietzsche>Foucault IMO, though Foucault is pretty spot on

>>20413208
Schopenhauer. now.

also, Hayek, Cioran, Schuon, Friedman, Tucker, George, Nozick, Illich, Feyerabend

for fiction, Poe, Heinlein, De Sade, Burroughs, Vonnegut

Bertiaux, ebony anpu, Allen H. Greenfield, Austin Osman Spare, John power, Andrew chumbley, Peter Hamilton-Giles, CF Russell, the fragments of the algol workings from Zivorad Mihajlovic Slavinski, Tau Palamas, Ralph Abraham, and there’s always hitting the primary texts harder. Like dee, for example. Or go to the newer philosophical strands like laruelle, Ray Brassier, negarestani, John Ó Maoilearca those will be fun, or dive deeper into the weird fiction part and study Clark Ashton smith, dunsany, MP Shiel, and more obscure writers like Henry S. Whitehead, the occult poetry of David barnitz, there’s also the fact that lovecraft’s friend smith, was basically taught by Sterling, the Sterling who made the ritual the bohemian grove uses. A number of their founders were also occult poets. One occult poet the bohemian grove members all praised but was not made famous was Edward pollock.

There’s a lot of options.

>>20413313
Never met someone interested in Schopenhauer, ill have to look into him.

Somewhat familiar with Hayek and Schuon.
Definitely want to read Nozick and Feyerabend.
Illicih looks interesting.

Like Burroughs and Poe.

Thanks, anon.

>>20413322
I'm looking into the Bertiaux-Beth lineage. Been looking into Traditional Witchcraft.
Speculative realism seems a bit byzantine, you recommend?
Definitely looking into other Weird Fiction.

Have any specific texts that you find pivotal? You've given a lot, which I appreciate.

>>20413323
>Never met someone interested in Schopenhauer
Welcome to /lit/, now go die.

>>20413208
Pretty gay list.

>>20413208
>Foucault
Literal faggot pedophile.

>>20413345
Yeah, OP should really start there.

>>20413335
>Been looking into Traditional Witchcraft.

Powers and chumbley are your men.

>Speculative realism seems a bit byzantine, you recommend?

Ultimately not a fan but perhaps you will be, give it a shot.

>Definitely looking into other Weird Fiction.

Begin with Gods of pegana and time and the gods, both by dunsany, for smith read the dark eidolon and apocalypse of evil. You should read the rest but these two will show you immediately the mystical that tie into your grantian studies.

>Have any specific texts that you find pivotal? You've given a lot, which I appreciate.

It’s autistic to wade through but you need to cut through the bullshit of bertiaux’s work, I would recommend palamas’s work on his material along with the monastery of seven rays material. But really all of the men I mentioned ought be studied if you want to fully appreciate this current of occultism.

If anything perhaps it would be interesting if you read some of the more primary material or works that approach it more directly, the Arbatel and Jean baptist pitois history of magic would both be helpful towards this endeavor, the way you’re portraying yourself is a tad unbalanced. Too fixated on the more edgy aspects perhaps. Some sattvic material would do you good.

>>20413341
Who are your favorite writers?

>>20413208
apex chud lineup

>>20413357
Been thinking 7 rays texts would be worthwhile. I like Bertiaux, but his whole system seems deliberately fabricated, which in a sense he would affirm, I'm sure. So I read a bunch of his work, and then I get to a point where it all seems arbitrary. Most occultism gets to that point for me.

>Too fixated on the more edgy aspects perhaps. Some sattvic material would do you good.
This list does seem negative, but I have Guenon and Ramakrishna for more positive perspectives. Wesleyan christianity as well.

>>20413380
>Been thinking 7 rays texts would be worthwhile. I like Bertiaux, but his whole system seems deliberately fabricated, which in a sense he would affirm, I'm sure. So I read a bunch of his work, and then I get to a point where it all seems arbitrary. Most occultism gets to that point for me.

Well duh, you’ve studied grant, you should know hard coded into these models is an apophatic and cataphatic mode, wherein you study them to gain knowledge and then they collapse in on themselves due to the first principles being so nondual, and then you reformulate them in accordance with your particular being via art/illusion creation. The primary usage of sorcery in spare and chumbley is ultimately the fabrication of eidetic structures and models and their unification with one’s own will in nature.

Bertiaux at length talks about how much his material is fictional, he’s actually very funny as a shitposter.

> Ramakrishna for more positive perspectives. Wesleyan christianity as well.

You’d still imo benefit from more sattvic material, boehme and molinos would be good options.

>>20413362
>chud
Almost all of them are pozzed, literally and figuratively.

>>20413345
unironically extremely nietzschean

But what of my lineup?

husserl, hegel, meinong, agrippa, boehme, John Dee, Kenneth grant, Iamblichus, Bertiaux, Abhinavagupta, Deleuze, gikatila, Linji, abulafia, merleu-ponty and Ge-Hong

>>20413404
>Well duh, you’ve studied grant, you should know hard coded into these models is an apophatic and cataphatic mode, wherein you study them to gain knowledge and then they collapse in on themselves due to the first principles being so nondual, and then you reformulate them in accordance with your particular being via art/illusion creation.
Its an interesting way to look at it. Not wrong I would say, but I think it underplays how seriously they take their work. How I've been thinking about it is a sort of mystic imaginative representation of spiritual experience, so it is somewhat fabricated by the individual but it doesn't collapse but is using the imaginative to endeavor into spiritually empirical spaces. Similar to what I've hear Corbin says about Islamic imagination, or somewhat similar to Jungian active imagination. I think I would take a more realist stance on nondualism (a la guenon) than you are.

>The primary usage of sorcery in spare and chumbley is ultimately the fabrication of eidetic structures and models and their unification with one’s own will in nature.
So impression of images on nature as the mechanism?

>You’d still imo benefit from more sattvic material, boehme and molinos would be good options.
I'll take this to heart. Have been feeling a bit heavy lately.

>>20413418
I like what little I know about Abhinavagupta, see him as a more positive version of advaita.

>>20413442
> but I think it underplays how seriously

Imo you misunderstand what I say, I do not see the cataphatic and apophatic as hardly divided forms, rather all knowledge is partial and each model will logically collapse thus each model will end up a kind of art model, the highest model a magician can produce is one that blends his being with that of nature as he perceives it, becoming a kind of theurgic idol for the spirit of God. I am not shilling some mundane worship. Simply that our constructs that map knowledge cannot ever grasp the totality of infinity and that sorcery is illusion based, and illusion can be a means of mystical growth.

As for the imagination, really you should read Blake, his ideas on the imagination are essential. The nonduality of the creative power of God, his will and the creative power of man as imagination as the shakti of reason is a very important topic.

>>20413208
Freud

>>20413480
>Imo you misunderstand what I say, I do not see the cataphatic and apophatic as hardly divided forms, rather all knowledge is partial and each model will logically collapse thus each model will end up a kind of art model, the highest model a magician can produce is one that blends his being with that of nature as he perceives it, becoming a kind of theurgic idol for the spirit of God.
I think i can agree with most of this.

>I am not shilling some mundane worship. Simply that our constructs that map knowledge cannot ever grasp the totality of infinity and that sorcery is illusion based, and illusion can be a means of mystical growth.
This is where you start to lose me. I still think you're implying a hard idealism sort of nondualism, a nonrealism. This is not uncommon, and to some not incorrect, but I think that the manifest is better viewed as artifice than illusion. The models we use are flawed and temporal, but the experience behind it has to have a reality to it. So a ball is in some sense an illusion, it is brahma, but it is not illusory at all to say the ball is in front of me and that the concept of the ball being in front of me has heuristic truth value.

>As for the imagination, really you should read Blake, his ideas on the imagination are essential. The nonduality of the creative power of God, his will and the creative power of man as imagination as the shakti of reason is a very important topic.
I'll have to look into it. Something like the imagination is the energetic force behind our use of reason? Imagination precedes rationality?
I think it is true that rationality is insufficient and religious insight must be superior to it.

>>20413483
Yeah, been wanting to get into psychoanalysis.

>>20413323
No problem