/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18553882]

>books that gave you panic attacks, vertigo, insomnia, etc.
for me its pic related

[Anonymous No.18554019]

Aren't those signs of possession?

[Anonymous No.18554028]

>>18554019
Possession of bad scholarship

[Anonymous No.18554115]

>>18553882
Yeah, I too realizied that references to Wind, Fire, Water and shit in "Thus spoke Zarathustra" are not just for fancy poetic stylishness.

[Anonymous No.18554179]

>>18554028
>bad scholarship
Evola's book on alchemy actually a good scholarship. Especially, if you supplement it with Titus Burckhardt's "Alchemy, Science of the Cosmos, Science of the Soul"

[Anonymous No.18555060]

>>18553882

[Anonymous No.18555066]

>>18553882
I read the Hermetic Tradition a few weeks after a very high dose lsd trip.
I'd take a break between chapters, look outside my window, everything was a mirage frozen in time.
Crazy shit.

[Anonymous No.18555104]

>>18553882
I’ve had to take a break from Jung because I started getting depersonalization whenever I would read him.

[Anonymous No.18555164]

I had weird experiences reading Evola too.

[Anonymous No.18555216]

I read Evola and now I'm gay

[Anonymous No.18555275]

>>18555216
I read Evola and now this anon is gay.

[Anonymous No.18555319]

>>18555275
I read Evola and now I can't unsee the world as gay.

[Anonymous No.18555784]

>>18555216
>>18555275
>>18555319
>"There is a whole ritual related to anal penetration through the narrow door that opens on the labyrinth (in the man, the intestine). In Tantric Yoga, the center of Ganesha, the guardian of the gates, is in the region of the rectum. The male organ, if it penetrates directly into the zone of the coiled energy (Kundalini), can allow to awaken it brutally and to cause states of illumination and sudden perception of transcendent realities. This is why this act can play an important role in initiation. "This explains a rite of male initiation, widespread among primitive peoples, though rarely reported by Western observers ..., in which adult male insiders have sex in the anus with novices ... The custom of this kind can be very much at the basis of the homosexual eroticism encouraged so strongly by the Greeks in the classical period. This act is one of the accusations made against the Dionysian organizations by their detractors, and against certain initiatory groups in the Christian and Islamic world

[Anonymous No.18555902]

>>18555104
Came here to say Jung did a number on me.
I won't repeat what I read, but I didn't eat for three months.
Lost 50 lbs and scored some nice snatch tho.
Some good and bad there.

[Anonymous No.18556355]

>>18553882
this book contains too many whitepills, frequent breaks are required desu

[Anonymous No.18556424]

this thread made me come to the conclusion that I’ll stick with fiction and never touch psychoanalysis or that weird evola guenon magic shit

[Anonymous No.18556498]

>>18555902
Extremely based. Where can I read what you won’t mention?

[Anonymous No.18556510]

>>18556498
Graffiti along the walls of my Rabbi’s anus

[Anonymous No.18556527]

>>18553882
1984
made me technophobic.

[Anonymous No.18556535]

>>18556424
why do you want to keep taking the blue pill anon? there's truth out there friend.

[Anonymous No.18556539]

>>18555784
Bro wtf

[Anonymous No.18556541]

>>18556355
>Was about to start reading this
>Browse 4chan instead because attention span shot to shit
>There it is

[Anonymous No.18556560]

I was only 30 pages in to reading the Philokalia when I became aware of the demons swirling around in my mind.

[Anonymous No.18556582]

>>18553882
Yes OP, consuming shit also makes me feel sick.

[Anonymous No.18556585]

>>18556541
godspeed unknown friend, my favourite letter is the chariot.
I genuinely think you could study this book for your entire life, it has that much useful information in it that you can keep coming back to.

[Anonymous No.18556589]

>>18553882
Redpill me on Hermeticism. Is it all just useless bullshit?

[Anonymous No.18556597]

Is this book at least an interesting read?

[Anonymous No.18556601]

>>18554179
Agreed. I have read a few books by the various Traditionalists over the last couple of months and have found that out of all of them Evola is the least open to criticisms of "dude just trust me" since he is fairly meticulous with citing his sources.

[Anonymous No.18556603]

>>18555784
>people in Anno Domini 2021 still take Evola seriously

[Anonymous No.18556604]

>>18556589
The scholars that were translating the Corpus Hermetica into Latin prioritized it before translating the complete works of Plato, just to let you know how important it was back in the day.

[Anonymous No.18556611]

>>18556604
>Back in the day

So in other words.. it's shit?

[Anonymous No.18556633]

>>18556601
What about Ananda Coomaraswamy? His works are 70% content 30% endnotes.
>>18556604
That was because someone in the Medici family thought the Hermetica contained the secrets to immortality, not out of scholarly and cultural relevance.

[Anonymous No.18556664]

>>18556633
>immortality isn't relevant

[Anonymous No.18556688]

>>18556611
Dumbed post ive read

[Anonymous No.18556690]

>>18556664
Well it clearly didn't, and the Medici family are tyrannical wop retards.

[Anonymous No.18556705]

>>18556688
>Dumbed post ive read

Dumbest post I've read today.

[Anonymous No.18556979]

>>18553882
Isn't this shit supposed to be heresy?

[Anonymous No.18556998]

>>18556355
>>18556541
>>18556585
Came here to post this. I need to reread this, it's been a year since I read it last.

[Anonymous No.18557034]

>>18556539
Its not gay if you do it traditianally.

[Anonymous No.18557125]

>>18556633
>What about Ananda Coomaraswamy?
Admittedly I haven't gotten around to him yet.

[Anonymous No.18557134]

>>18556705
Your a diamond dozen anon.

[Anonymous No.18557178]

>>18556539
Shut up, and pull your pants down

[Anonymous No.18557269]

>>18555104
>>18555902
If I already have it - severely, I literally do not feel human - will Jung help?

[Anonymous No.18557301]

The Holographic Universe

It made me have my very first panic attacks and depersonalization so severe that it lead to me having heart problems and nausea so bad that I was crippled and doctors couldn’t find what was wrong. No I’m not meming. Nor was I mentally ill or mal-adjusted beforehand.

I had become completely ruined by thinking of myself as not a physical being, but rather a projection of thought. It made me feel as if reality could be torn asunder at any moment for eternity, or has or will be, or any iteration of said maleability that the observable nature of reality could allow or permit.

Learning that we are a projection of light through some sort of godhead was too much for me at 21. Now I’m 27 and have learned to accept and embrace it. We are infinite, and all is okay.

As said in the Bardo Thodol:

“Thy guru hath set thee face to face before with the Clear Light; and now thou art about to experience in its Reality in the Bardo state, wherein all things are like the void and cloudless sky, and the naked, spotless intellect is like unto a transparent vacuum without circumference or centre. At this moment, know thou thyself, and abide in that state.”

[Anonymous No.18557313]

>>18553882
Der Sandmann by ETA Hoffmann

It was recommended to me by my German teacher. I read it and the narrator paired with the surreal plot made it a highly unusual experience.

[Anonymous No.18557347]

>>18553882

[Anonymous No.18557538]

Nietzsche's Eternal Return is a idea that I haven't been able to shake ever since I personally experienced the possibility of it being true in the deepest depression.

[Anonymous No.18557629]

>>18557538
>Nietzsche's Eternal Return
"The hunchback, however, had listened to the conversation and had covered his face during the time; but when he heard Zarathustra laugh, he looked up with curiosity, and said slowly:
“But why doth Zarathustra speak otherwise unto us than unto his disciples?”
Zarathustra answered: “What is there to be wondered at! With hunchbacks one may well speak in a hunchbacked way!”
“Very good,” said the hunchback; “and with pupils one may well tell tales out of school. But why doth Zarathustra speak otherwise unto his pupils—than unto himself?”—"

"When it got abroad among the sailors that Zarathustra was on board the ship—for a man who came from the Happy Isles had gone on board along with him,—there was great curiosity and expectation. <...>
To you, the daring venturers and adventurers, and whoever hath embarked with cunning sails upon frightful seas,—
To you the enigma-intoxicated, the twilight-enjoyers, whose souls are allured by flutes to every treacherous gulf:
—For ye dislike to grope at a thread with cowardly hand; and where ye can divine, there do ye hate to calculate—
To you only do I tell the enigma that I saw—the vision of the lonesomest one.—"

In other words, the Eternal Return is bullshit. Zarathustra speaks to different audiences differently. The Eternal Return is told to fucking sailors, and those are not the most intelligent audience. Later, literally fucking animals comment on it, while Zarathustra himself ignores them.
Meaning, it is not to be taken seriously. It is meant to provide a religious narrative how to discipline cattle.

"The philosopher, the way we understand him, we free spirits, as the man of the most all-encompassing responsibility, who has the conscience for the collective development of human beings—this philosopher will help himself to religion for use in his work of cultivation and education, just as he will use contemporary political and economic conditions. <...> That’s something the Brahmin, for example, understood: with the help of a religious organization they arrogated to themselves the power to appoint a king for the people, while they held themselves apart and outside, sensing that they were human beings with higher purposes, something beyond kingship <...> Finally, for ordinary people, the vast majority, who are there to serve for common needs and are permitted to exist only to that extent, religion gives an invaluable modest satisfaction with their situation and type, all sorts of peace at heart, an ennoblement of obedience" (Beyond Good and Evil, 61)

[Anonymous No.18557644]

>>18557301
Was it worth it? Did it help you? Or did you simply learn to live with what it revealed?

[Anonymous No.18557653]

>>18553882
This book doesn't even have much potential to be frightening. Most of it is a dry treatise. Introduction to Magic is probably worse for that.

[Anonymous No.18557658]

>>18557538
Take the Middle Way. Even if it is true, it shouldn't affect you if you consider it rationally.

[Anonymous No.18557686]

>>18557134
Oh, YOU! *Audience laughs and applauds*

[Anonymous No.18557689]

>>18556535
>read Bardo Thodol
>then Phaedo
>then The Soul After Death
>ascend

[Anonymous No.18557696]

Ted K's manifesto blew up my brain and it's still in pieces.

[Anonymous No.18557715]

>>18556355
Got any more whitepill book recs?

[Anonymous No.18557720]

>>18554179
>Evola
>good scholarship

Hahahhaha

[Anonymous No.18557748]

>>18557696
yeah, yours probably isn't the only brain he blew into pieces

[Anonymous No.18557766]

>>18557748
i dont know anon, i think thats what he wanted to say...

[Anonymous No.18557771]

I looked into that pharmakos shit once upon a time. That stuff any good?

[Anonymous No.18557780]

>>18555784
What book is this from?

[Anonymous No.18557787]

>>18557780
It's not, just the standard shill-trying-discredit.

[Anonymous No.18557795]

>>18557771
Shit, I meant the pharmako/poeia books Dale Pendell is the author, anyone here read 'em?

[Anonymous No.18557802]

>>18557787
Sounds pretty legit to me, no way it's not from something

[Anonymous No.18557807]

>>18557802
Have you already been initiated, if you know what I mean?

[Anonymous No.18557822]

>>18557802
It's easy to make things sound legit by simply referencing things Evola normally references, while adding in absurd verbs and nouns.

[Anonymous No.18557831]

>>18557807
kek

[Anonymous No.18557846]

>>18557715
>Upanishads
>Bhagavad-gita
>Confessions - Augustine

[Anonymous No.18558309]

>>18557822
Nothing absurd about it

[Anonymous No.18558341]

>>18555784
>gets buttfucked
>thinks he had a transcendental experience

[Anonymous No.18558352]

>>18553882

[Anonymous No.18558385]

>>18555784
Well, he’s right. That was encouraged (in certain circles) in Ancient Greece and there were proponents of basically pederasty in both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy because they thought it was good for male bonding.

[Anonymous No.18558392]

>>18557538
>I personally experienced the possibility of it being true in the deepest depression
Explain.

[Anonymous No.18558611]

>>18557269
Why do you not feel human?

[Anonymous No.18558652]

Do you fags seriously get this worked up over books? Start lifting, your nervous system is pathetically weak.

[Anonymous No.18558663]

>>18558652
lifting is a homosexual practice made for the weak.

[Anonymous No.18558802]

[Anonymous No.18558825]

>>18558802
Nice meme

[Anonymous No.18558870]

>>18558802
Plus this

[Anonymous No.18558903]

>>18558802
>>18558825
No meme. I studied esoterica for years and Jung intensely before getting into philosophy.

It wasn't until pic related that I had something strike me with the full force of revelation. Something more intuitive and profound and even the momentary "clarity" of psychedelics and disassociative hallucinogens, while also solid, holding up to analysis. PoS is the systematization of Boehme's realizations. It's the only time I've felt religion with logical certitude despite a decade in churches.

[Anonymous No.18558910]

>>18558903
>religion
Which one?

[Anonymous No.18558916]

>>18558802
>>18558870
Based

[Anonymous No.18558924]

>>18558802
This is feel-good philosophy, how did you have a panic attack reading it? I felt more edgy reading Kant or Fichte (especially the latter).

[Anonymous No.18558942]

>>18558916
What are the fundamental prerequisites to Hegel? The bare minimum required to understand him

[Anonymous No.18558948]

>>18555784
>taking the bait
novices indeed

[Anonymous No.18558960]

>>18558352
>absolute masterpiece
>0 replies

>>18558802
>absolute garbage
>5+ replies

[Anonymous No.18558970]

>>18555784
oh yeah man i really feel this whenever my boyfriend fucks me in the ass with his huge dick. absolutely tantric experience

[Anonymous No.18559086]

>>18558970
it only works if a brahman fucks you, obviously

[Anonymous No.18559101]

>>18553882
1984 I had to put down a few times because of its logical bleakness

[Anonymous No.18559160]

>>18559101
lol 101

[Anonymous No.18559201]

>>18558910
Boehme was Christian, an orthodox Lutheran whose adventures in philosophy, theology, and mysticism led him to unorthodox conclusions.

The key is that God, for Boehme and Hegel is immanent, in the world. For the Orthodox, Platonism had slowly replaced the naive immanence of God in the world of the ancient Hebrew a (i.e. God in the Bible has a body, has moods, and walks the Earth). God became the Platonic Form of the Good. A fully transcendent being that existed outside the world.

This lives on in modern, unselfconscious Christianity, which tends to posit a type of Cartesian dualism where your true essence is an immaterial soul, and Heaven is a state of immateriality. In fact, the eschatology of Revelations supposes a physical Heaven, while dualism produces all sorts of contradictions. It can only exist as a popular conception because the orthodox don't question the ideas they inherit.

So God is immanent in the world, similar to Spinoza. But unlike Spinoza this God is not just the world. For Boehme, and later Hegel, God creates the world as something other than God so that God can know itself. God is evolving. "The truth is the whole." God can only come to self knowledge through the experience of all history.

As one of the fathers of semiotics Sausser says, "a one word language is impossible." One thing that applies equally to all things is meaningless. Sublation, the ability to negate and say what something is not is the root of definition (Maimonides gets at this in describing God through negations). Thus to have knowledge, God must create that which is other, the world. The opposite of being is nothing, and the two concepts are in contradiction. The dialectical solution is a synthesis, becoming.

Thus man is also another self that must exist for God, the Absolute, to come to know self.

What Hegel does is take the basis of the semiotics of negation and build up a system of knowing the Absolute through logic.

There are some interesting parallels in modern science. Models of panpsychism and phi, stirring up real interest in physics recall the immanent God and universe as an act of knowing. The Many Worlds theory, existence as an infinite Pleroma of actualities coming into being recalls the Gnostics and Boehme. It's certainly interesting stuff.

[Anonymous No.18559232]

>>18558924
Because conceiving of the Absolute is overwhelming.

Also because there is in PoS only a beginning. It's a preface. The Science was never finished and probably never will be.

Plato's cave has no exit. It is sealed, a tomb. We can climb ever higher, but Hegel's vision of love of gnosis becoming gnosis, or wissen becoming wissencraft is itself only intuition, the flicker of light on the cave walls.

When you realize this, the Incompleteness is suffocating. Maybe if we could breed for intellect for millenia, selecting for discernment and intuition, if we could tinker with our own genetics and fuse our conciousness to machines we could start to approach the Absolute, but even then I believe we would find the way blocked. Incompleteness, the fate of all mortals, is our original sin. The truth is the whole, and so we can never grasp it in our finitude.

[Anonymous No.18559248]

>>18558942
A major survey in philosophy, there are several, as well as some specific reading on Plato.

Some sort of survey articles like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on German Idealism, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, Aristotle, and Eckhart. They don't have an article on Boehme so you need to look him up somewhere else.

Hegel's greatest works are also very hard to penetrate so it might be easier to start with the lecture notes on the philosophy of history.

[Anonymous No.18559257]

>>18558802
>>18558960
Filtered

[Anonymous No.18559280]

>>18559201
What I'm getting from this, in a nutshell, is that the hegelian model is a panentheist take on Christian theology, but isn't the idea that "God seeks to know itself" a negation of platonic philosophy?

[Anonymous No.18559357]

>>18559232
>>18559232
>conceiving of the Absolute is overwhelming
do you mean that you were overwhelmed by a concept? or do you mean, by 'conceived of', as though you were in the position of a woman, who 'conceives of' or 'conceives by' a man, so that it was as if the absolute had impregnated you, inseminated you, and you where overwhelmed by its manhood, raped, as it were. or did you play the male part, so that you where overwhelmed in conceiving, having an 'Absolute orgasm' or what have you. or was it that you gave birth to the Absolute, and you felt the pangs of an arduous mother whose bowels have facilitated a new creation, etc. otherwise, i myself am underwhelmed by the thought of you, reading the PoS, and suddenly, you have thought of the Absolute and, ah! it has hit you, and you cry "it's the Absolute! i cannot bear it" and so on. this seems absurd and unbelievable.

[Anonymous No.18559375]

>>18559357
>conceives by' a man, so that it was as if the absolute had impregnated you, inseminated you, and you where overwhelmed by its manhood, raped, as it were

This one desu.

[Anonymous No.18559410]

>>18559280
Not really. God is distinct in Hegel. He goes out of his way to distance his views from Spinoza's pantheism.

Yes, Hegel does reject Plato's theory of forms, following Aristotle in critiques of it. The Forms were a way to solve the problem of identity, but it doesn't actually solve the problem, as myriad philosophers have pointed out, it just duplicates it into abstractions.

Hegel's semiotics has more in common with the Heraclitean tension of opposites than with Plato, and he had a great deal of admiration for Heraclitus.

Plato's forms are, at the end of the day, a language game gone wrong, that mistakes logical soundness for truth and elevates abstraction simply for its abstractness. The forms, at their heart, have no semiotics, and so are slaves to the unexamined systems of meaning from which they spring.

[Anonymous No.18559445]

>>18559410
>to distance his views from Spinoza's pantheism.
Yes, I said panentheism, not pantheism. God is immanent in this world but also exists outside of it, it's not an equivalence (world = God) but an addition (God = world + something outside of the world).
I'm currently reading Plato and I thought the theory of forms was extremely elegant and logically sound

[Anonymous No.18559457]

>>18559375
i see, and so hegel is, for you, a fellow mistress of the absolute? which of you is the master's favorite?

[Anonymous No.18559466]

>>18559445
Have you read any of the critiques of it? There is a reason it gained popularity for so long, but also a reason it fell apart.

[Anonymous No.18559478]

>>18559466
Not yet, which ones would you recommend?
My problem is I completely disagree with nominalism, so is there a realist framework even better than Plato's?

[Anonymous No.18559517]

>>18559478
What's the deal with nominalism?

[Anonymous No.18559538]

>>18559232
what hope is there?

[Anonymous No.18559582]

>>18559517
It's a slippery slope

[Anonymous No.18560057]

>>18559478
>In the first place, Plato has no understanding of philosophical syntax. I can say 'Socrates is human,' 'Plato is human,' and so on. In all these statements, it may be assumed that the word 'human' has exactly the same meaning. But whatever it means, it means something which is not of the same kind as Socrates, Plato, and the rest of the individuals who compose the human race. 'Human' is an adjective; it would be nonsense to say 'human is human.' He thinks that beauty is beautiful; he thinks that the universal 'man' is the name of a pattern created by God, of whom actual men are imperfect and somewhat unreal copies. He fails altogether to realize how great is the gap between universals and particulars; his 'ideas' are really just other particulars, ethically and aesthetically superior to the ordinary kind. He himself, at a later date, began to see this difficulty, as appears in the Parmenides, which contains one of the most remarkable cases in history of self-criticism by a philosopher.

>"...they persuade him to relate the famous discussion between Parmenides, Zeno, and Socrates. This, we are told, took place when Parmenides was old...Zeno in middle life...and Socrates quite a young man. Socrates expounds the theory of ideas [forms]; he is sure that there are ideas of likeness, justice, beauty, and goodness; he is not sure that there is an idea of man; and he rejects with indignation the suggestion that there could be ideas of such things as hair and mud and dirt -- though, he adds, there are times when he thinks that there is nothing without an idea. He runs away from this view because he is afraid of falling into a bottomless pit of nonsense...

>"Parmenides proceeds to raise difficulties. (a) Does the individual partake of the whole idea, or only of a part? To either view there are objections. If the former, one thing is in many places at once; if the latter, the idea is divisible, and a thing which has a part of smallness will be smaller than absolute smallness, which is absurd. (b) When an individual partakes of an idea, the individual and the idea are similar; therefore there will have to be another idea, embracing both the particulars and the original idea. And there will have to be yet another, embracing the particulars and the two ideas, and so on ad infinitum. Thus every idea, instead of being one, becomes an infinite series of ideas. (This is the same as Aristotle's argument of the 'third man.') (c) Socrates suggests that perhaps ideas are only thoughts, but Parmenides points out that thoughts must be of something. (d) Ideas cannot resemble the particulars that partake of them, for the reason given in (b) above. (e) Ideas, if there are any, must be unknown to us, because our knowledge is not absolute. (f) If God's knowledge is absolute, He will not know us, and therefore cannot rule us.

That's part of Russel. Aristotle began destroying the Theory soon after Plato died.

[Anonymous No.18560123]

>>18560057
You can also consider color. Is there a form of red? Well we now know color is just the subjective experience of light waves of different frequencies. And so there isn't an idea of red, but at best infinite gradations of ideas corresponding to different frequencies. Or we can suppose red refers to all the different shades of red that can be discerned as discreet by the human mind, but then man, not eternal forms, becomes the basis for the Forms.

We see also that language shifts over time. For the naive realist, Plato's forms aren't real because they don't exist in material form. They exist only as language games encoded in human neurons. You'd think idealists and constructivists would be more amenable to Platonism, but they also destroy the Forms' eternal nature since the meaning of words changes over time, and languages are socially constructed even as they construct reality.

And indeed, the forms are subject to Kant's a priori faculties, to the shape of human cognition, which presents additional problems for their eternal nature. The Copernican turn of Kant creates all sorts of problems for eternal ideas that are supposed to exist outside of human experience. Whatever the forms were, we could never know them.

[Anonymous No.18560168]

>>18557644
It helped once I gave in. And now that I’m reading stuff like OP’s pic and other major religious texts, it’s all making sense. I think The Holographic Universe is a great introductory and revelatory book for those of us born in an overtly secular period of human history.

[Anonymous No.18560197]

>>18560057
Russell was the first redditor

[Anonymous No.18560295]

>>18560197
Those aren't even his original arguments. The issue is logical contradictions and reductio ad absurdum in the forms.

[Anonymous No.18560511]

>>18553882