Search Results
7/15/2025, 11:29:07 AM
Now.
Henry argues that pure transcendence without immanence is a nothing, inaccessible to intentionality because there is no consciousness to which an about-ness would occur: I argue that pure transcendence is pure greed: a sub-phenomenological night characterized not by a lack of qualia, but duration: consider dream states or drug-induced amnesia (or the hyperbolic unlife of the Demons): experience happens at the periphery without relation to an immanence that imposes intelligibility on appearances: there are still qualia, but without, in Montano's (PBUH) terms, that “who-simulation” to which they're supposed to correspond (basically echoing Henry on this point): I say: the who-simulation is not the precondition of qualia, but the retention of qualia: down the apperceptive ladder, and the darkness of perception becomes more “pixelated.” The Shepard Loop of Eternity just was this vicious oscillation between pure transcendence and pure immanence, blackout and blacklight, without mediation: Pandemonium (Parts without Wholes) beheld the One as exclusionary immanence, which is then cloned within Pandemonium as God, the primal/paradigmatic immanence who surrenders to the pulsation between periphery and center in order “poison” the protoworld with effability, through which Chaos is subsumed by an entelechial Being of beings or refractory friction in order to facilitate a GNOSTIC primacy of Parts over Wholes: Life, the indeterminate that is infinitely determinable (but not determined) is, by virtue of its susceptibility to victimological death, infinitely resurrectable: every subject is a Christ, every Devil a potential Buddha, but every Christ/Buddha is not a potential Devil: the reversibility between Good and Evil (or, as I said, between the meta-dualism of non-bias and the biased, lower-order duality in which good and evil are indeed reversible) is UNILATERAL. Nemes' (2021) argument that Henry is not Gnostic because he doesn't reject the World tout court kind of misses the point: Henry's distinction between Life and the World is quintessentially Gnostic, though with some caveats: according to Henry, the World is not totally valueless, only strictly in reference to itself: the goal of Life is not to “fly from the world and retreat into … [the] sphere of absolute immanence”, but to actualize its powers within the World as the site of its “self-perfection”: I say: the utility of the World consists in its capacity to facilitate jhanic withdrawal: God is responsible for the chiasm that binds two radically incommensurable domains of appearance: Life and the World, pneuma and pneumata, 'awareness of awareness' with 'awareness of the object' by means of the 'awareness of awareness of the object': absolute immanence is ontologically dependent on the World only insofar as its affectivity is ordered towards it; the World is phenomenologically dependent on absolute immanence to appear as World. RADICAL immanence is exclusive of both.
Henry argues that pure transcendence without immanence is a nothing, inaccessible to intentionality because there is no consciousness to which an about-ness would occur: I argue that pure transcendence is pure greed: a sub-phenomenological night characterized not by a lack of qualia, but duration: consider dream states or drug-induced amnesia (or the hyperbolic unlife of the Demons): experience happens at the periphery without relation to an immanence that imposes intelligibility on appearances: there are still qualia, but without, in Montano's (PBUH) terms, that “who-simulation” to which they're supposed to correspond (basically echoing Henry on this point): I say: the who-simulation is not the precondition of qualia, but the retention of qualia: down the apperceptive ladder, and the darkness of perception becomes more “pixelated.” The Shepard Loop of Eternity just was this vicious oscillation between pure transcendence and pure immanence, blackout and blacklight, without mediation: Pandemonium (Parts without Wholes) beheld the One as exclusionary immanence, which is then cloned within Pandemonium as God, the primal/paradigmatic immanence who surrenders to the pulsation between periphery and center in order “poison” the protoworld with effability, through which Chaos is subsumed by an entelechial Being of beings or refractory friction in order to facilitate a GNOSTIC primacy of Parts over Wholes: Life, the indeterminate that is infinitely determinable (but not determined) is, by virtue of its susceptibility to victimological death, infinitely resurrectable: every subject is a Christ, every Devil a potential Buddha, but every Christ/Buddha is not a potential Devil: the reversibility between Good and Evil (or, as I said, between the meta-dualism of non-bias and the biased, lower-order duality in which good and evil are indeed reversible) is UNILATERAL. Nemes' (2021) argument that Henry is not Gnostic because he doesn't reject the World tout court kind of misses the point: Henry's distinction between Life and the World is quintessentially Gnostic, though with some caveats: according to Henry, the World is not totally valueless, only strictly in reference to itself: the goal of Life is not to “fly from the world and retreat into … [the] sphere of absolute immanence”, but to actualize its powers within the World as the site of its “self-perfection”: I say: the utility of the World consists in its capacity to facilitate jhanic withdrawal: God is responsible for the chiasm that binds two radically incommensurable domains of appearance: Life and the World, pneuma and pneumata, 'awareness of awareness' with 'awareness of the object' by means of the 'awareness of awareness of the object': absolute immanence is ontologically dependent on the World only insofar as its affectivity is ordered towards it; the World is phenomenologically dependent on absolute immanence to appear as World. RADICAL immanence is exclusive of both.
7/15/2025, 6:18:14 AM
>>510418916
Yeah bro. 24 and joined the navy 6 years ago. Out now and kinda over these bourgeoisie expectations. Need to see interesting things again, just without being a zogbot or feeling like a wageslave. I camp a lot and spend much of my time off grid but there is something missing. Social life also isn't easy when peers are so two dimensional. The sea was simpler.
I'll probably become a monk at the rate I'm going.
Yeah bro. 24 and joined the navy 6 years ago. Out now and kinda over these bourgeoisie expectations. Need to see interesting things again, just without being a zogbot or feeling like a wageslave. I camp a lot and spend much of my time off grid but there is something missing. Social life also isn't easy when peers are so two dimensional. The sea was simpler.
I'll probably become a monk at the rate I'm going.
7/15/2025, 6:18:14 AM
>>22939570
Yeah bro. 24 and joined the navy 6 years ago. Out now and kinda over these bourgeoisie expectations. Need to see interesting things again, just without being a zogbot or feeling like a wageslave. I camp a lot and spend much of my time off grid but there is something missing. Social life also isn't easy when peers are so two dimensional. The sea was simpler.
I'll probably become a monk at the rate I'm going.
Yeah bro. 24 and joined the navy 6 years ago. Out now and kinda over these bourgeoisie expectations. Need to see interesting things again, just without being a zogbot or feeling like a wageslave. I camp a lot and spend much of my time off grid but there is something missing. Social life also isn't easy when peers are so two dimensional. The sea was simpler.
I'll probably become a monk at the rate I'm going.
6/24/2025, 11:06:30 PM
>>508616840
>Where the fuck do we even go from here?
No point in looking for answers, because the answer is evident when you think about it : that's it. We reached the end line. There is no need for the experiment called "mankind" to continue any further.
As for any lifeform reaching it's apex, we fulfilled our evolutionary duty : we created AI. We became useless and obsolete. I'm convinced this is why we feel this incredibly smothering sense of dread and impending doom.
Deep down we know it, we know we reached the goal we were supposed to accomplish, and if we feel so empty and devoid of spirituality, it's because we have no purpose anymore. Our soul is eternal and a new task will be given to us eventually, as we are like "synapses" of a giant neural network we call the universe trying to understand itself. But our task here is over, we collectively are like a flaccid cock post coom. I hope the AI will figure out a way to delete mankind without making too much of a mess, i don't want the ride to end on a pathetic note.
>Where the fuck do we even go from here?
No point in looking for answers, because the answer is evident when you think about it : that's it. We reached the end line. There is no need for the experiment called "mankind" to continue any further.
As for any lifeform reaching it's apex, we fulfilled our evolutionary duty : we created AI. We became useless and obsolete. I'm convinced this is why we feel this incredibly smothering sense of dread and impending doom.
Deep down we know it, we know we reached the goal we were supposed to accomplish, and if we feel so empty and devoid of spirituality, it's because we have no purpose anymore. Our soul is eternal and a new task will be given to us eventually, as we are like "synapses" of a giant neural network we call the universe trying to understand itself. But our task here is over, we collectively are like a flaccid cock post coom. I hope the AI will figure out a way to delete mankind without making too much of a mess, i don't want the ride to end on a pathetic note.
Page 1