/lit/ - Literature

>>20768563
>ultimate Salvation of Humanity
spooked

>code of reality is anthropocentric
Pass

You've been posting about this the last few days haven't you? You're likely are on the road to psychosis, ego tripping is never a good sign.

>>20768563
post 3 aphorisms from your book, in the manner of icycalm, rei koz, goonan, so we may judge you

>>20768563
psychic inflation

>>20768563
When your entire philosophy crumbles because a guenonchad refutes your simplistic atomism

still waiting on those aphorism bro

>>20768819
>>20768725
The Pneumatic Creed:
>1. Any force which disagrees with the Truth is a malignant force.
>2. There are only two malignant forces: the Capital and its Slaves (hylics).
>3. All more or less mentally healthy hylics can become psychics/pneumatics. Only deeply mentally ill hylics are doomed to remain hylics.
>4. Anyone who is not with the Truth scatters.
4. is empirically proven by evolution (natural selection and reproduction rate)

>>20768733
Guenon refutes the existence of quanta? Ultimately quanta are just manifestations of the One quantum field. What does Guenon disagree with? In any case, Guenon is philosophical trash, same as Nick Land.

>>20768834
decent start, but this is really only one aphorism

>>20768834
>4. is empirically proven by evolution (
Evolution has never been empirically proven though.
>>20768845
>Guenon refutes the existence of quanta?
Quanta do not exist as such. Quanta are proximate matter and by definition cannot have independent existence. Do yourself a favour and read Wolfgang Smith's books if you're at all interested in quantum mechanics.

>>20768861
>creationist and generally anti-intellectual hylic with pretense of not being one
Rejected. So long!
>>20768850
I forgot to add to 1. to specify:
>1. Any force which disagrees with the Truth OR otherwise tries to discourage the spread of the Truth is a malignant force.
You're doing the latter. You're extremely unlikely to represent the Capital as an average person unless you're a Jew, in which case you're most likely just a slave of the Capital, whether consciously or not. So long!

>>20768909
I'm not a creationist, just pointing out that evolution has never been empirically proven. You can't make philosophical (ontological) claims with mere hypotheses.

>>20768941
Philosophy is founded upon conjecture.

>>20768957
Conjecture that is taken to be true and necessary, not hypothetical and unnecessary.

>>20768980
How does one distinguish the two?Probability?

>>20768941
>I'm not a creationist, just pointing out that evolution has never been empirically proven
you're a creationist and you're using common, tired and well-refuted creationist arguments against evolution, which is an incredibly well-proven theory that has been proven empirically ("micro-"evolution on the scale of 1.5-2 million human years, or 34 normal years of e.coli reproduction)

>>20768996
Hypothetical and unnecessary: If x, then y. If z, then y. y is true, therefore...
Necessary: x is true, x implies y, therefore y.
>>20769013
I haven't used any argument, I've just stated a fact, that it is empirically unproven. This is acknowledged in the wider scientific community.
>micro-"evolution on the scale of 1.5-2 million human years
"Micro evolution" is just the modification of genes, which we already know is relevant to the functioning of organisms. "Microevolution" is a misnomer because it actually has nothing to do with the theory at large, someone being born with a new natural hair colour would be an example of microevolution, even though it is just a random mutation. The fact that E. coli are still the same organism and species is enough to show that no macroevolution has taken place, even over the course of a supposed 2 million year.s

>>20768834
the approach to enlightenment in the modern day is a trial of Icarus as speaking truths that are revealed to you will get you diagnosed mentally ill and as the definition is well known the collective consciousness of humanity is trained to reject you

reveal yourself to a skeptic and be destroyed by the jaded human consensus he is closer to, reach a personal truth and you have to fight against the human drive to co-operate and share developments with others to retain it
deeply selfish and immoral people sit atop of the world in the modern day because it takes a certain inhumanity to pass modern day trials of enlightenment as they've been shaped by collective consciousness

>>20769037
>The fact that E. coli are still the same organism and species is enough to show that no macroevolution has taken place, even over the course of a supposed 2 million year.s
lol. you do realize some species are hundreds of millions of years old?

all creationists are ignorants. i swear. i mean, by definition, to be a creationist you have to be capital I Ignorant

>>20769037
E. Coli is as perfect as it's DNA can carry the information for, different strains can only occur in the face of radical changes in environment and in order to gain an adaptation it has to lose some of its perfection at its original purpose

notably hospital E. Coli which is resistant to standard cleaning temperatures and household bleach is feeble when it actually infects a human that doesn't have an immune disorder, in order to gain resilience it has moved away from the apex of evolution it reached
additionally if it has to compete with regular strains of E. Coli it goes extinct in that environment on a scale of months to years

Evolution stops at perfection, and the bar is low for simple organisms but unfathomably high for humans

>>20769060
>lol. you do realize some species are hundreds of millions of years old?
Yeah, but that does not really help the case of macroevolution.
>>20769083
>Evolution stops at perfection
This sounds awfully unscientific.

>>20769158
>This sounds awfully unscientific.
It doesn't. You showed your fundamental misunderstanding of Darwin.
>>20769083
thanks for helping me out ;)

>>20769177
>It doesn't.
What is the scientific criteria for perfection? Why didn't evolution stop at bacteria and macrophages once they had maximized (which I know is what you meant by "perfection") their quantity of progeny? Why would life bother with more complex organisms when simpler organisms are more adaptable and less prone to mass extinctions, ie "more perfect"? There are explanatory gaps which can only be explained by "chance", which is what is generally called "random mutation", even though there are no empirical observations of any of these random mutations leading to morphologically significant changes (see: "macroevolution", E. coli does not really count as a significant morphological change due to chance, merely minor adaptations). In other words, macroevolution as a whole is one big argument from ignorance, "random mutation."
>You showed your fundamental misunderstanding of Darwin.
Darwin's hypothesis is no longer considered valid. Most legitimate evolutionists subscribe to some sort of gene centered hypothesis, or other more subtle theories.

>>20769213
>Why didn't evolution stop at bacteria and macrophages once they had maximized (which I know is what you meant by "perfection") their quantity of progeny?
Because there are different kingdoms/domains of Life. You fail at the most basic aspects of Biology. It's like you never even went to HS or are only about to "enroll" (haha) to HS, or your HS was shit in the typically American way and taught you quite literally nothing at all

>>20769158
>>20769213
>This sounds awfully unscientific.
100% of the storage space of E. coli's DNA is utilized
there is no junk DNA
any new adaptations means either a growth in the size of the bacteria to fit more DNA, which has a knock on effect on energy requirements and consumption or a loss of other data to make space

it has a perfect utilization of DNA combined with a perfect adaptation to it's environment, ANY change makes it move away from this perfection
human intervention can force a new strain to emerge but that new perfect isn't as good as the original, because it's no longer capable of invading human bodies and causing gastroenteritis, it has become weaker in the struggle to survive
hell even the human digestive system's native E. Coli gets dabbed on when you vomit it up and it has to compete with kitchen bench chad-coli

pic, an anthropomorphic representation of E. Coli

>>20769236
>>20769256
I love you my dude. We should team up maybe (all pneumatics should, for the betterment of Humanity)

>>20768563
you know it's retarded because wanting to save the whole humanity is one of the retarded fantasy by non-enlightened

>>20768909
kek the seethe by atheists who fucking love science and yet never did a scientific experiment lmao. Religion level of stupidity over here.

>>20769228
>Because there are different kingdoms/domains of Life.
That's not an explanation, that's an arbitrary post facto rationalization based on the fact that we perceive gradated differentiations of complexity. There is no sufficient evolutionary explanation why there would have to be different domains of complexity, when the simpler domain is more evolutionarily "perfect" at exploiting those same domains (simple organisms). It also relies less on appeals to ignorance like gigantic jumps in genetic mutations which lead to equally gigantic changes in morphological complexity. Every observed instance of significant genetic mutation in complex, and even simple organisms, has without fail resulted in severe harm to the organism resulting in reproductive failure. There is simply no empirical explanation for any of this, only, as I said, post facto rationalizations which are not scientific, like the one you just gave, relying on arbitrary human categories to explain nature's function.

>>20768563
you're posting on an Iphone, stfu

>>20769382
>Religion level of stupidity by that atheist over here.
Welcome to Guenon, Evola et al.
The "intellectual" conclusion of the New Atheism (yuck!) "movement."

Tfw only Sam Harris ever got close to any semblance of Truth of all the New Atheists

>>20769389
>There is no sufficient evolutionary explanation why there would have to be different domains of complexity
It's called ecological niche. As I said, you do not know the basics of Biology. Literally go back to school. Discussion is over. I'm not going to play HS teacher for you.

>>20768685
It is bro, just trust me.

>>20769426
>It's called ecological niche
Which can be filled by both simple and complex organisms. There is no necessary reason why a given organism must be complex in order to exploit a niche. As I said, your theory relies on appeals to ignorance (random chance) to actually succeed in explaining this based on its own criteria of perfection. Please, explain why this is not the case.

>>20769435
>Please, explain why this is not the case.
Without appealing to post facto rationalizations (X
happened that way therefore it MUST have happened that way), might I add, and actual empirical evidence.

>>20769433
>>20768685
there is no such thing as anthropocentric the moment you truly realize that everything is one

that's all. if you're uninitiated, meditate. if you're lazy but have a strong sense of Self that will not buckle even if ALL your convictions are put to a test, do LSD, and then meditate/contemplate (try thinking deeply but only after most of it wears off).

both meditation and LSD are one and the same tool (for contemplation), just varying in potency. think of the goal of contemplation as trying to get rid of a bullet inside you. meditation is surgery with all the professional surgical tools, LSD is self-surgery with a knife, and if your Self is strong enough, you're gonna do it and additionally carry a disinfectant, a needle and a thread.

so long!

>>20768685
>>20769433
it's the mandate of heaven and it can be lost but it'd take a nuclear holocaust at this point
we're in the anthropocentric era, that much is undeniable

>>20769435
>Which can be filled by both simple and complex organisms.
Yes, and? Different organisms utilize the same niche differently. Only one animal dominates all corners of the world (Homo sapiens), plenty of non-animal species dominate all corners of the world (including the middle of Antarctica) alongside humans. Are you trying to imply unconscious and passive coexistence as some sort of gotcha? I dont understand

Have they not taught you the basics of biology, ecology and competition in high school at all? Go back to fucking high school for real and stop bothering me, weirdo

>>20769473
>Only one animal dominates all corners of the world (Homo sapiens)
That's very incorrect, there are insect species like ants which not only dominate a greater fraction of the globe than us, but are also more adaptable and robust, and have been around longer than us. By all scientific metrics, ants are more successful than us.
>Yes, and? Different organisms utilize the same niche differently.
The point is one organism's success, according to the theory, is at the expense of another's. Simpler organisms, like bacteria and macrophages, are more adaptable, robust and less prone to extinction, and are also more efficient at monopolizing any given niche. These can apply to all niches, they only happen to be restrained to certain niches due to circumstantial factors which we cannot understand. The point is these circumstantial factors are all accounted for by evolutionary theory as an argument from ignorance - they are all attributed to "random chance." There is no evolutionary explanation for why humans, ultimately a very weak and capricious species which will probably be reduced to rubble in the next few decades, should even exist in the position they have. The only explanation I've seen is "random chance." Bacteria would do a better job at filling the niche we have.

If the entirety of humanity are psychic and form a psychic oversoul then skepticism is a literal power of disbelief to disable others psychic abilities

The logical conclusion of this train of thought is that Penn and Teller are hoarding all the most powerful magic and have weaponized skepticism against their enemies

>>20769495
>ants dominate a greater fraction of the globe than us
do they? they're tiny and concentrate in hives which are also quite small and spread out

>>20769535
also, I did the calculation for the fun of it. humanity covers 0.01% of the Earth's landmass but is also extremely spread out. work out the % for the ants yourself, perennial guenonian big boy ;)

>>20769495
humans dominate thought, about 2.5 trillion calories are consumed each day to fuel humanities brains, collectively

>>20768563
you didnt crack it though, you had it spoonfed to you. Bit of a difference there isnt it?

>>20768563
You are actually schizophrenic and should seek help before you hurt yourself beyond repair.

>>20769542
>but is also extremely spread out.
it is not, since half the humans live in coastal cities, and those dont cover a lot of ground

>>20769573
>you didnt crack it though, you had it spoonfed to you.
Actually I cracked it all by myself on the basis of my own limited personal experience and unlimited imagination and intellect, and only used pre-existing Knowledge accumulated by Humanity to refine my theory.
>>20769580
humans are the only animals who can survive, procreate and raise their children in the middle of Antarctica

Darwin is an atheist duplicitous bitch.
the only difference between darwin and lamarck is that darwin made up a theory about a population and lamarck made up a theory about an individual.
Now here is the thing. in order to work with ''a population'', you need to use statistics. and statistics dont lead to proofs and even less to truths.
Darwin's theory is not falsifiable and atheists are gaga about this, even though in public they say falsifiability is awesome.
In fact, the atheist concept of a ''a population'' is not even well defined. At best you they come up with a fuzzy definition.
So with darwin theory you get no predictive claims and when you try to get numbers out of it, you only get few stats about a population and if the theory fails, the atheists will say the numerical results are just statistical artifacts, no big deal.

>>20769589
The thing that finally mind-rape and buck-broke Christians is the fact that Darwin was a Christian.

It's just how the fact that Marx was a Jew mind-raped and buck-broke the Jews

>>20769585
>Actually I cracked it all by myself
There is nothing new under the sun, you suffer from extreme narcissism

>>20769585
>>Actually I cracked it all by myself on the basis of my own limited personal experience and unlimited imagination and intellect,
Is there any way rationalists will stop being cringe? Why do those bugs keep deifying imagination and negate reality, ie that imagination has nothing to do with getting knowledge?

>>20768563
>the One
Stopped reading there

>>20769589
You actually need some degree of education in order to make such an uneducated post

>>20769037
confidently incorrect. love it.

>>20769013
You have no empirical proof that the past goes back millions of years, opinions discarded. Meanwhile there is *empirical* evidence supporting young earth such as carbon 14 is diamonds, dinosaur bones with soft tissues and blood cells, etc.

>>20770158
Calling me a bugman is like calling Hegel a bugman. What I have is rationalized mysticism, it's not a bug's way of life as professed by analytic bugmen
>>20769625
it's nothing new yet people don't wanna procreate on a global scale for the first time in history. how do you square that?
>>20770988
so you think reality is dualistic/pluralistic just because the binary algorithm of the brain operates on analogy to approximate Truth?

>>20769597
Darwin was not a Christian, and even if he was, a Christian saying something does not make it true. There are a whole load of ‘Christians’ who push absolute nonsense with no foundation in Church history or thought. Evolution is one of these pagan heresies.

Darwinism also emeged in an environment reacting against 19th century natural theology. These scientists looked at nature and saw much ‘waste’ or ‘cruelty’ and exclaimed ‘God would not do that!’ and thus proposed naturalistic assumptions in accordance with various naturalistic, Malthusian and uniformitarian ideas. At root its all about the problem of evil meme, an argument from alleged dysteleology and a rejection of the Bible, the definition of what Paul calls ‘vain philosophy’ in Colossians 2:8

>>20768563
One curious thing about patients with psychosis is that those that imagine themselves as being any other figure except for themselves, imagine themselves as a figure that is above life - Jesus Christ, God, Buddha, Napoleon etc.
It is uncommon for a person to claim that they reached enlightenment and can therefore now live as the enlightened janitor, or bank teller.
The idea of a higher purpose is pretty appealing. It gives meaning to every thought and action. If you happen to be God that is. That's probably part of the reason why it's hard to imagine yourself as not being a godly figure and not having a higher purpose.

>>20771183
>It is uncommon for a person to claim that they reached enlightenment and can therefore now live as the enlightened janitor, or bank teller.
That is actually precisely the way I imagine myself as the Second Messiah. You're projecting your own insecurities and doubt about own enlightenment and in fact the very nature of reality, upon me. You're saying the person who says that they are truly authentic and grounded simply because they have proper Virtues which they have examined elenctically is impossible.

Take a look at my tripcode and note what article it uses. The Second Messiah will not be one person, but a hyper-entity just like the Capital. I logically conclude that the Capital is the Demiurge and I propose a peculiar form of theism that is basically the opposite of deism: god has abandoned us but will return, as the Second Messiah, and as the opposing hyper-entity to the Capital. The hyper-entity is a singular abstract form, a manifestation of a pure idea embodied by a collective of truly conscious, and thus wise, people. This consciousness is as far from the human as it is close to him, and the simplest prescription is to:

live, self-improve by expanding into nothingness (Faustian mission that has now been expanded on the entire globalized society), love and procreate. we still have life, we have a semblance of the second thing, we barely have love anymore and we no longer procreate

>>20771144
The only reality we can experience is pluralistic. Anything else is pure fancy

>>20771242
energy is pluralistic?

>>20771204

>hyper-entity

So ... emergence. Ok then.

>>20771260
everything can be banalized, even why you love your significant other

>>20771250
Depends on what you defineby energy. But as it is commonly ubderstood, yes

>>20771274
>But as it is commonly ubderstood, yes
idiot. energy is carried by quanta of it. quanta are otherwise defined as excitations of the quantum field. is that pluralistic or not?

>>20771277
Yes it is

>>20771285
different forms of energy in Physics are just abstractions of once and the same concept

>>20771290
No, they really are not.

>>20771304
Consider how everything "knows" what rules to follow.
There is no thing we know of with it's own completely independent context. If there is such a thing we couldn't know about it because information wouldn't be exchanged.

>>20771317
>Consider how everything "knows" what rules to follow.
?
>There is no thing we know of with it's own completely independent context. If there is such a thing we couldn't know about it because information wouldn't be exchanged.
That's right

>>20771325
>That's right
In that sense everything is "one". Everything physical at least is part of the same phenomena.
At one time the properties we use to make distinctions weren't expressed. The phenomena that expresses them had a completely different form. Most of our distinctions are very high level, resting on things like a history with multiple generations of suns changing energy into what we perceive as elements. That's to talk about something fundamental like gold, an entire chair is like a psychedelic experience in comparison.

>>20771304
so elementary particles are fundamentally different from each other? they represent some exotic forms of matter or energy (same thing)? now that's just plain wrong

>>20771390
So you base your entire system on exotic speculations over quantum mechanics?

>>20771415
wut? that's you. i only base my speculations on Ockham's razor, the scientific consensus, philosophy, sociology, history and economics. and of course art

>>20771422
That doesn't seem to be happening. Also you don't know how the razor works, if you invoke it as an argument

>>20771432
One is less complex than many. If you have the same descriptive and predictive power using one thing you don't need two things. We reduce our observations into simpler and simpler descriptions that cover more and more until we find something irreducible for now. Those irreducible parts become axiomatic to the description like the fundamental physical forces are to most physical descriptions.

>>20771612
That's just a heuristic method, not a proof for any metaphysical claims

>>20771632
You can't prove many things about anything, basically only within a framework you set up yourself anyway. You can only build better models with more power.

>>20771668
So?

>>20771675
Your criticism applies to anything said about anything. If I take it as the final word all analysis of anything is worthless. There is no productive point behind what you're saying, the only result is shutting down thought.

>>20771688
Not accepting arbitraty metaphysical dogmas is not the same as "shutting down thought".

>>20771432
actually I elaborate in my earlier manifesto on the abstract doctrine of Pneumatism and there I debunk dualism by proving that if either monism or dualism is correct, you can construct a theory of History that is scientific, and I deduce that only a monistic explanation can ever be scientific and a dualistic explanation is rather impossible

>>20771738
If you want to critique his ideas you're free to do so but you haven't been so far. You've been resentfully deploying arguments that can shut down any thought if actually taken seriously. Likely because you're too simple minded to even think about any of these subjects. At least that's what your posts so far suggest.
He doesn't have to "prove" anything. You can't "prove" anything either.
Apparently conflicting models can both model parts of the reality they're describing accurately. Understanding both can be more powerful than only understanding one.

>>20769575
this

>>20771787
>He doesn't have to "prove" anything.
actually I did spend a lot of time "proving" my philosophy, in the sense of proving it against logical refutation while at the same time still respecting the rules of science, of which there are 3:
>falsifiability
>empirical testability
>minimization of observer interference upon studied subject
within this framework it's just a method of working out what's more likely and less incoherent. a monist theory of everything presents no contradictions at all, a dualistic/pluralistic theory of everything would be very hard if not impossible to construct without contradictions. ultimately dualism assumes there are 2 different realities of things, 2 different worlds within one

>>20772096
Are you going to acknowledge the people saying you're crazy? I've been through psychosis myself, and I behaved awfully similar to the way you're behaving here. Have you been sleeping well? If things get intense, try to remember nothing needs to be done, no one wants to hurt you, things are ok. You probably should try to get an antipsychotic prescription to cool down for a bit.

>>20772096
Not really testable and more importantly no predictive power. You can't use it for anything. When you start describing things or predicting anything you revert to a model which distinguishes between things.
We're all one "soul" including even the rocks. I do tend to believe this but what now? What do I do with this information? Rocks are still rocks.

>>20772321
Well no, it has incredible predictive power. Ask away

>>20772350
Give examples.
>ask away
What the actual fuck.

>>20772363
>>20772321
Rocks, life, conscious life, hyper-conscious life, these are just different forms of ordering matter in the universe, each more complex than the previous one. everything is an emanation of one and the same idea (energy/matter). existence itself is divine, that there is something (energy) rather than not

>>20772381
How does saying everything is one predict rocks?
The only thing I get out of this jumble of words is maybe the idea of the prime mover. I think it's inescapable that we have to account for it but it's not an idea you came up with or added to in this thread so far.

>>20768834
>he believes in evolution
ngmi

>>20772381
yeah you're just he average atheist from the 70s. at least you know your future: the hippies of 1970 who kept saying they were the smartest became the boomers of 2020, and given how retarded those rats are, their claim to be enlightened was phony as fuck lol