3x3 thread

[Anonymous No.17176866]

r8, h8, give recs

>Bataille
>Berkeley
>Blanchot/Sade
>Duvert
>Laruelle
>Leiris
>Montaigne
>Rabelais
>Shinran

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17176916]

>>17176866

I love laruelle and seeing Shinran in that mix is odd, are you that anon whom I spoke to elsewhere about laruelle, boehme and a few others?

I’d give you a 7 or 8 out of 10.

The blanchot/Sade pill goes well together, laruelle is high tier, Berkeley I feel is more building his model solely for the sake of rhetoric against non-idealist and atheists, I’ve found stronger purer models elsewhere especially Hegel.

Bataille is fun but I find Austin osman spare covers much the same ground had better.

Montaigne I find more enjoyable in terms of literary value than his actual conceptions. Rabelais is a fun time but I honestly am not transgressive and don’t seek that kind of freedom of arbitrarity

Shinran is based, odd to see him here, not my favorite Buddhist though.

Haven’t read Michel Leiris nor have I read read Duvert but I suspect from what I do now I wouldn’t like him at all.

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

[Anonymous No.17176927]

>>17176866
Very nice, anon!

[Anonymous No.17176940]

>>17176916
yup yup pretty sure we've talked.
I appreciate the Spare rec
Shinran happens to mesh really well with my reading of Laruelle if you cut away his theological stuff
and I like Duvert because of certain experiences I had as an adolescent

I can't speak on everything in your chart, but I always love how developed your taste is

>>17176927
thanks!

[Anonymous No.17177001]

>>17176866
Very good taste anon.
7/10

[Anonymous No.17177026]

>>17176866
Based Montaignebro.
>>17176916
Don't know like half of these guys but Dee and Deleuze are based picks.
>>17177001
Can't knock the Buenoposter.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17177036]

>>17176940

You should try out some kukai, Shingon is a heavily tantrik field.

>>17177026

If you haven’t I highly recommend reading boehme beginning with his book Clavis.

Though I’ve some disagreements it’s a fine list you have.


>>17177001

Pretty based, I would recommend Husserl and Edith Stein.

[Anonymous No.17177060]

>>17177036
I've really wanted to! From what little I know, I really appreciate that shingon places importance on various media as paths to truth, not just writing.

[Anonymous No.17177062]

>>17177036
I've heard of and know the basics concern Boehme, I was more so completely ignorant of the identities of the Eastern philosophers you have on your list. I disagree with you pretty often as well but I think you're a respectable effortposter so I can't complain.

[Anonymous No.17177079]

>>17177062
concerning*

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17177111]

>>17177060

Here have some links if you haven’t had them before.

http://www.bdk.or.jp/document/dgtl-dl/dBET_ShingonTexts_2004.pdf

(I especially enjoy his analysis of hum but that’s because of my tantrik background)

http://www.bdk.or.jp/document/dgtl-dl/dBET_T0848_Vairocana_2005.pdf


>>17177062

Thanks friend, I think you’d like the eastern names on my list. Abhinavagupta is the biggest systemizer of basically every relevant tantra system that was available plus he was studied in Buddhism and Vedanta and is able to make strong critique of both. A easy entry to his work would be his commentary on the gita. His system is more baroque than Spinoza or Whitehead of the like.

Linji is actually much more friendly to new people but his simplistic knowledge is very very refined, read the record of linji or collections of his teachings and its very accessible.

Ge Hong is the primary alchemical/“magical” source in Taoism, Taoism has a religious side, a philosophical side and a alchemical branch. Ge Hong is essential on the first and third but his works are very hard to come by and they’re considerably complex at a level westerners aren’t used to Taoism being.

The Jews would take too long to get into. Hope you check some of them out!

[Anonymous No.17177185]

>>17177111
appreciate the links!

[Anonymous No.17177335]

>>17177111
I've actually been wo ndering soemthign for a while and you mentioning Linji reminded me of it, is there a meaningful difference between Chan and Zen Buddhism? As far as I know Zen is just Japanese Chan.

[Frater asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17177392]

>>17177335

There’s major differences in how lineages work and how teaching works. Chan being the older form has older lineages which eventually produce the Japanese models which fall under the zen category which can be very different or very similar depending on which of the two lineages and teachers you’re reading.

[Anonymous No.17177420]

>>17177392
Ah I see, is it sorta similar to how Sufi Tariqahs work then?

[Frater asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17177449]

>>17177420

Close enough

[Anonymous No.17178977]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17179134]

>>17176866
>Berkeley
fucking why?

[Anonymous No.17179278]

>>17179134

What’s his problem?

[Anonymous No.17179472]

>>17179134
he has a beautiful minimal system
if you think he can easily be shit on, your conception of "idea" is probably too narrow. Berkeley's "ideas" aren't just notions or thoughts but anything being experienced by a "spirit" (spirit more or less being equivalent to a phenomenological noesis)

[Anonymous No.17179609]

>>17176866
Shinran really sticks out here, do you see a connection between him and fx. bataille?

[Anonymous No.17179811]

>>17179609
I see connections between Shinran and Laruelle mostly (immanent indefinable entity determining the "world", instantaneous atemporal grace)
but I also see links between Bataille and Laruelle, specifically the paths Bataille goes down in the Summa Atheologica. his mystic experiences with "nothing" and the concept of nonknowledge stick out to me here

[Anonymous No.17179979]

[Anonymous No.17179990]

>>17179979
Who are the three people on the right column?

[Anonymous No.17180079]

>>17179472
The fact that you're a proponent for these types of puerile threads gives me reason to believe that you're just posting Berkeley to be a contrarian.

[Anonymous No.17180089]

>>17180079
>"I'm in a thread I don't like and I don't like what's being posted, in the thread I knew I wouldn't like!"
Dude you could be reading right now instead of saying this shit for the fortieth time, spend your time doing something you enjoy.

[Anonymous No.17180353]

>>17180079
if you think liking berkeley is contrarian, i'm pretty sure you're thinking of the infamous sparknotes-berkeley or maybe the what-some-random-dumbass-youtuber-or-intro-to-philosophy-professor-said-berkeley-was-like-berkeley instead of the actual berkeley

[Anonymous No.17180437]

[Anonymous No.17180512]

>>17180437
a little concerning but good stuff

[Anonymous No.17181349]

[Anonymous No.17181386]

[Anonymous No.17181494]

Could you guys name who the dudes are in your photos?

[Anonymous No.17182649]

>>17176866
based erotic Bataille poster

[Anonymous No.17182714]

>>17181349
Klossowski! <3

[Anonymous No.17182770]

>>17179134
Wrote dialogues, good writer, neat philosopher

[Anonymous No.17182959]

>>17181386
Are you my Soc. teacher?

[Anonymous No.17182986]

>>17176866

[Anonymous No.17183013]

Berkeley beyond based. Love to see him here. The only people that dislike Berkeley are people who haven’t read him. Beautiful metaphysical system that raises great questions about materialism.

[Anonymous No.17183102]

>>17182959
No but he sounds pretty based. But seriously, appart from Baudrillard and Foucault, how would you use these in sociology?

[Anonymous No.17183116]

>>17176866
recs: artaud, cioran, deleuze

[Anonymous No.17184106]

>>17183013
yup, totally agree

>>17183116
artaud and deleuze are among my favorite writers
cioran's p good too from what I've read by him

[Anonymous No.17184425]

[Anonymous No.17184445]

>>17176866
Love Bataille, Blanchot, Montaigne, and Rabelais. Don't know enough about the others to comment.

[Anonymous No.17184696]

>>17179990
Ono no Komachi, Cao Xueqin and Hilda Doolittle.

[Anonymous No.17185729]

>>17180437
who is the bearded fella in the bottom left square, anon? is it the Glazial-Kosmogonie man

[Anonymous No.17186875]

>>17179811
thanks - what reading order do you recommend Laruelle? and should i read D&G first?

[Anonymous No.17187454]

>>17186875
reading deleuze first isn't necessary. although he has a bit of deleuzian influence, he himself is not a deleuzian. it does help, however, to have general knowledge of continental philosophy since his writing style is incredibly continental and since he's a fan of making many brief references to various philosophers in the canon.
I see others online using Philosophy and Non-Philosophy as a starting point. I can't speak for that strategy, since I haven't read that one. I started with Principles of Non-Philosophy and fell in love with it. either probably makes a good intro because they're both more generic in scope, and then any further books will help his ideas gel more in your mind.
of the others I've read and recommend, Théorie des étrangers deals with Lacan, Future Christ and Mystique non-philosophique deal with themes of christianity and mysticism, and Struggle and Utopia gives critiques of Badiou, Michel Henry, and his student Gilles Grelet (who is a proponent of an easy-to-make misreading of Laruelle). my favorite book of his is Dictionary of Non-Philosophy. that one is perfect.

[Anonymous No.17187584]

>>17187454
thank you, is Bataille useful? What about his non-knowledge?
>Dictionary of Non-Philosophy
can you talk a bit about it?

[Anonymous No.17188458]

>>17185729
I think that's Friedrich Engels

[Anonymous No.17189406]

>>17185729
>>17188458
Yes, it's Engels.

[Anonymous No.17189795]

>>17187584
Bataille isn't immediately useful for reading laruelle but it wouldn't hurt to know about nonknowledge ig
Dictionary of Non-Philosophy just presents Laruelle's ideas in dictionary form. it's really condensed and punchy. just a great read.

[Anonymous No.17189840]

>>17176866
Ha! Ha!
You're a fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.17189911]

>>17189406
>Friedrich Engels
It's actually spelled Friedrich English

[Anonymous No.17189973]

>>17189911
>not even Frederick

[Anonymous No.17189998]

>>17189911
>>17189973
Freddy Angels*