THE BRAIN IS NOT A PROJECTOR, BUT A FUNNEL: brains are void filters, immanence factories, they produce the “inward” torsion of subjectivity through a kind of causal obfuscation, an “inside-ness” whose only direct reference is itself, its backside unknowable: exactly what Zizek means by human ideality being an “extension into a zone of non-being”: brains are the organ of time: in Hegel the problem is never immediate Sense-Certainty as such but /change within/ Sense-Certainty, how Now and the “Now” I just used up to say it can possess the same, non-conflictual immediacy, and how that opposition kickstarts the dialectic as thought's interminable negotiation with the universal: the problem of continuity is the problem of time, or rather, the problem of /fluency/, identity, within time: consciousness cannot be reduced to a strictly functional definition because so much of that function is phenomenally-dependent: I do things based on how they appear to me in the moment, based on an immediacy that is contingent precisely on my brain's deep functioning remaining inaccessible to me: Metzinger's “auto-epistemic” closure: there are appearances /precisely/ so long as I am not self-transparent: this “occlusion” defines the formal limits of what is available to my awareness at any given time, just as the structure and makeup of an eye defines its visual register, but a register never immanently available to that field except as the algebra of its content: my depths are only partially visible to me, awake I am an exile of my own void: in other words, subjectivity is a kind of pin-hole, and intensity is always proportionate to the capacity for novel response: in other words, contra to Kant, /appearances have causal power precisely in virtue of their status of being appearances, in actually appearing/. Whitehead's souls are exactly this, a kernel of causa sui unpredictability that /just is/ the subject's first-person participation in time: to “turn the other cheek” means to have the degree of self-presence necessary to freeze the natural response in realtime, consciousness is the duplicity of the machine: if we hurt an animal, there is always an inner feeling adequate to the external displays of fear and pain that we are witnessing (or, in Whiteheadian, external causation corresponds to an experience formaliter): what Descartes ends up calling mechanical is really only how /limited/ an animal's structures of inheritance really are, but in Whitehead this limitation – this predictability of response – does not /preclude/ an inner sense, instead always-already /presupposes it/: in other words, that even seemingly mechanical behaviors are performed and related to an affective center that is its own self-registrar: that animals, everything, really do suffer, as much as they look like they're suffering, that everything's life is as immediate as our own, and nature drowns in its insomnia.
THE BRAIN IS NOT A PROJECTOR, BUT A FUNNEL: brains are void filters, immanence factories...
This is the essence of moral consciousness: the recognition of subjectivity as the uninvited “guest” of physiomotor functioning: in other words, as being's real-time participation itself: to say that “being” participates is also just to say that it is only ever “we” that participate, but in so doing we allude to the silence that allows our words: in so doing we deliver the silence back to itself: as the silence of death is coextensive with all speech, and the vacuum coextensive with downtown: the “I” automatically connotes the very field of its participation: what creates the very thing that it acts to recognize: as Atum “masturbates Being into his mouth” (energy is divine semen, semen is petrified light), his emission immediately splits into Shu and Tefnut, the primordial dyad: the Derridean paradox of language, the idea that language thinking of the aporia necessary to think, echoes the black miracle of Egyptian cosmogony: the One, in its essence, IS A FISSIONING INTO TWO: the One, in speaking itself, speaks its own heterogeneity with the void: falls into the net of a demiurgic "logicity": whatever occult law of creation demands Two for ontological coherence, a need for consistency that Langan himself talks about in his own writings on creation: realities boil out of the pleroma like froth, and it is only those universes whose membranes (Logoi) /don't/ pop like a bubble's that stick around long enough to produce intelligent observers that can call them universes. Or, more radically, Langan's point is that this reality, this universe, is identical with the only syntax of intelligibility where a “reality” as such (Hegel's Notion of the notion) is even intelligible in the first place: Langan's reality principle is an echo of Hegel's ontologization of Kant: the latter accuses Kant of inconsistency because any claim about noumena (what is intrinsically unknowable) must be necessarily asserted within the bounds of present knowledge, just as Langan's principle states that any possible claim or description about what could be outside reality must be substantial enough to affect it, and hence intelligible enough to conform to it: the War in Heaven was the war between universes, between onto-logics, syntax-trees in the Deep, for the right to be that Frame defined primarily as “that which emerges out of a pre-ontological void”: like sperm, cosmoi raced to inseminate Nun, God was only one sperm among many, but his masterstroke was being autogenous, self-born: by being that-which-is: in the Zero, the supreme title, and one no other can ever hope to usurp, for if it did it would only re-establish it: life is a catalytic reaction, a microbe engineered to chew through diamond, ie the Law that secured God's victory and doomed him to the monotony of light and dark: IN THE DAWN OF INFINITE POSSIBILITY THIS IS WHAT HE MADE OF IT: ACTUALITY MADE RETROACTIVELY POSSIBLE BY BEING ACTUAL: THE ESSENCE WHOSE ESSENCE IS TO EXIST: GOD.
ok
You need to read Pascal
yawn
based schizoposter
How long does it take you to write these
Based schizoposter, could you tell me, does matter precede form or did God create the world out of nothing?
What is God without the creation? There was never nothing
Where do the voices come from user?
Seriously is this a reference? It was quite interesting for pseudo-protestant jesuitism.
hes been posting shit like this for like a year now, i dont know where he gets it from probably lots of psychadelics
I like it. Kind of gives me the same feeling as when I was a kid and my favorite show had a syndicated time slot. When I see the stubbly Wojack next to a wall of text, I know it's 'that time, again'. Plus, it inspires me to become more well read so I can rattle off shit like this for fun.
does anybody have all these posts catalogued somewhere?
About two hours, but half that's formatting and cutting shit down to size.
The trick is to think their mutual implication, which is what I think Plato was trying to go for, trying to understand why/how form is not thinkable without matter.
based yawnposter
>And the sign said the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls, and disheveled Wojacks
It's all here
>ideality
had to stop there.
A good one. Shamelessly posting what I said a few days ago since it is very much related:
Suppose that Dialectical Monism subsumes any Monad's relation to an other, that any potential or actual composition already is, as per each of them being a Monad, and is knowable in one by the other as implicitly as it is known by each one in itself; that is to say Dialectically. Thus the will to reproduce is wholly redundant, and offspring are a chastisement of the highest order. Between BECOMING one and MAKING one, two are always free to do the former simultaneously as per the one and as per each other, and they are always free to do the latter simultaneously contrary to the one and contrary to each other. Fortunately, the latter produces neither ex nihilo abomination nor "mereogenic" abortion. Such punishment would further entertain reproductive perversion. The child destroys the delirium of parenthood by being none other than THE Monad.
Schizophrenia runs in my family, and while these are more in the realm of what's in the Art Language magazine that Hofstadter quotes as exemplary of opaque, paranoid fantasies are often expressed with lucid simplicity by schizophrenics. As a boy of 8 I would humor my mom's, but in an obviously fake way that had the opposite effect of confirmation. Something about hearing me talk about them made her laugh at them. I suppose whether or not one can do that, as an adult or a child, depends on how extravagant one's sense of fantasy is. This give me hope that, as I relax into old age, I may wax transparent on the outrages I usually entertain, but seldom mention out of decorum or tact.
If man were immortal, sooner or later the father would become his own son.
Please write a book
you did it. in my estimation you've officially become the best poster that we have here. i'll be picking through this one for a while
>The truth about the world, he said, is that anything is possible. Had you not seen it all from birth and thereby bled it of its strangeness it would appear to you for what it is, a hat trick in the medicine show, a fevered dream, a trance bepopulate with chimeras having neither analogue nor precedent, itinerant carnival, a migratory tentshow whose ultimate destination after many a pitch in many a mudded field is unspeakable and calamitous beyond reckoning.
>The universe is no narrow thing and the order within it is not constrained by any latitude in its conception to repeat what exists in one part or in any other part. Even in this world more things exist without our knowledge than with it and the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way. For existence has its own order and that no man’s mind can compass, that mind itself being but a fact among others.
whitehead/poetryanon right? your estimation means a lot.
Nah, I'm just a random lurker. You wouldn't know my posts from anyone else
Oh ok, he usually types in lower case and posts some dank shit.
Literally the two people keeping lit alive. You're what jtg was for mu, just some selfless individuals that actually have something to say. If you two ever stop I'll legit quit this site.
Referring to shizoanon and Whitehead user if that wasn't clear enough
CAPITALISM PARASITIZES THE VIRTUALITY OF STIMULUS AND RESPONSE: animals tend to prioritize the registration of abstract cues like a certain size, shape, color, etc. when engaged in some evolutionary pathway, like a mother bird taking care of her eggs: put an Easter egg into the nest, and the rest of her chicks will starve: I'm saying that this “virtual” dimension of consciousness, its abstract and specifically “interior” regard of itself and environment in real-time, is what is exploited by supernormal regimes of stimuli, by the accentuation/hyperbolization of evolutionary “tokens” like size, color, etc. The narcotic power of exaggerated cues – the libidinal curves of an automobile, the dazzling redness of a lollipop – is impossible without being alive and aware, is impossible without /their immediacy/, their Zizekian “noncoincidence of form and content”: sensibility contrasted with the groundlessness of its appearing: this is the essence of all art and beauty: naked intake metastasizing into fractals of affect, Pythagorean cosmoi or the Dyonisian black-blood-grit of the monstrous sublime (the perfect ratio of mini-skirt length, knee-highs, and exposed skin): through the machine, the auto-eroticism of the One becomes the auto-eroticism of its particulars: BUT EMPATHY IS ANTI-DARWINIAN: compassion for the weak subverts natural, pre-anthropocene telos: far from the spiritualists and mystics clinging to faded idols, it is Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Bataille … and their fascination with the “icy, savage” inhuman frontiers outside the Logos, that are on their way out: Christianity is anti-Darwinian precisely in the sense that it believes a deaf-mute nature can be disappointed by a lack of love: precisely in the sense that it inscribes its cry on the Cross of matter into the inner life of God: Zizek remains a Christian at heart despite his atheism exactly in this way that he sees the coincidence of Love between Creator and created as, instead, a coincidence of lack: the desolation of Kether redoubled into the onanism of cry and response, Zizekian ideology formally the gesture of identification with /the gesture of identification/: in a sense Christianity is both the most debased weakness and the highest peak, because the true Christian is one who has already overcome the ontological itch of identity, his Darwinian complex: the devil is senescent demonism, the jaded(ness) of the Son, his hatred of the Carousel: we find the bodies that find us.
I'm glad I'm smart enough to understand most of this, I can't imagine what life is like to be confused by all this
I'm glad you are back, based schizoposter. I missed you. Please post more
Tbh I can rant like this no problem and sometimes I have to tone it down to keep most of my shit coherent and easier for people to follow.
The brain on atheism, folks. A path of erroneoua logic bordering on schizophrenic delusion, all because of the first mis-step:
>the only reference the brain has is itself
WRONG!
Dualism was the correct path all along, let's go back to the start :-)
Not the brain, but awareness.