Rouse means to rise from sleep. Stendhal syndrome, religious ecstasy, and genital stimulation represent one thing, arousal. Not high or low but absolute. Beyond grappling with the pleasure principle there is the need to make vision of how we orient ourselves to the world according to this new place. I am kept under constant surveillance by love, that pokes out of the deepest sea of death. Diamonds scattered about overhead as gusts of August heat accompany my gaze over a long stretch of road. Hereafter in the cool heavy linen pressed against the naked body as I remember everything. In computer hardware development a team builds a machine and everything is supposed to work to a T so they run the first test. There looms the possibility of failure and amongst the team is a lot of nervousness. But there is one person on the team who is not nervous. In fact, he is very excited because he anticipates it will fail and, in its failure, learn more about the machine, what’s left to build and work on, where the team has failed, what weak links are responsible for that failure, etc. All of this for him is very good. Let it fail. He even looks forward to this negativity because this negativity is the means by which the machine will progress and how the team itself will polish to perfection. This person is a real Hegelian. The antithesis comes first. You see the thesis is not the thesis until out of itself contradictictions arise. Sublating these contradictions, taking the good and shedding the bad, results not in something entirely new, but a return to itself as more itself than it was before. Hegels dialectics is a process of self identity, reconstitution, apocatastasis. Mediation, reflection, is the movement or activity of reason, therefore the Notion is both it’s begining and end, the result was always there to begin with, and the end is an establishing of the beginning as begining. It’s not enough to say A=A, or all is one, for the one, if it be all, must show itself in all as all and one, which is how Hegel establishes his reflexive subject, Conciousness, active, is both at one substance and subject. Conciousness of itself and for itself.
“I do my best proof reading after I hit send”
Hegel makes the claim that philosophy shouldn’t be edifying and he goes on to say that philosophy is the path to despair. That it inherently is a confrontation with death. But what’s fascinating is that he says tarrying with this negativity is the real meat of life. It’s really interesting because on both hands the Romans say to either cope with the absurdity or to find peace and ataraxia in the simple, where as Hegel is saying confront the negativity as real negativity, face it, not embrace it, not find jubilance in it but literally Death. Die. Any kind of negativity that you’re thinking of that makes you feel cool or edgy is not the kind of negativity he’s talking about. He’s talking about go after your absolute weakest vulnerable scared places, that’s how I translate it. This is one way Hegel changed my life. It’s not confronting the “bad” or “negative”, it’s really doing the tough crazy work that you really would rather run away from your whole life. He’s not talking about some metaphysical negativity, some abstract evil, he’s talking about the absolutely real negative and evil that is confronting you and to tarry with it. And he says that you won’t succeed, you will die, but what is real and true will progress and the good will always assert itself when the real work is done. I think Heidegger knew this very well and his whole fight against metaphysics is really a fight against the blind eye we have to our own being-in-world, and therefore only Dasein, the being whose being is an issue for it, has the capacity to even approach the question of Being. Too often we cowardly keep evil and goodness, weakness and strength at an arms length so that we never really have to confront what it means for us in our life, because that confrontation would be so devastating that who we are would be annihilated. What Hegel teaches us is that this is real progress. Seen in this way, egoism is inherently the fear to confront Death, always running away from this confrontation, never really living. And it makes sense, because living is for the tough and brave and those willing to sacrifice for the good, no matter what. Reason allows us to see the series as a series, but the Understanding allows us to progress ahead of it. Reason is active in the world, and Humans have come to reason by themselves for themselves. But this understanding succeeds itself, and this succession, that is also Life, is God coming to know himself through the Human being, not just as Substance (Spinoza), but as Subject, so says Hegel. This may seem like a lot to take in, but there is something really extraordinary about stopping in the middle of a work about the Absolute, and feeling the Absolute, feeling yourself succeed yourself indefinitely, losing all sense of self of sameness or change, infinite or nothing, to see the series, the individual shapes that manifest in various ways, but identifying manifestation itself as itself without a self. Bataille’s response to Hegel is really interesting, it was the subject of Derrida’s essay “From Restricted to General Economy: A Hegelianism without Reserve”. He responds to Hegel by laughing. He says that Hegel doesn’t really take the annihilation by the negative seriously enough, he doesn’t take Death seriously enough. There’s no return. The system itself becomes annihilated. Rebirth is always an incentive from a false death. A real Death means no return. Derrida finds this interesting for a number of reasons, but I feel like what most inspires him by Bataille is the idea of the Phenomenology of Spirit as a work of a phenomenologist, in the line to Husserl and Heidegger, which he develops in his other essay “’Genesis and Structure’ and Phenomenology”. This is a real work of tarrying with the negative, Derrida is at his fearless and uncompromising in his pursuit to say what (he) really thinks.
“Not only are the metaphysicians guilty of this attitude” – system and speculative closure, a restricted economy – “but often, unbeknownst to themselves, so are the adherents of the empirical sciences: both groups would be congenitally guilty of a certain sin of explicationism. The phenomenologist, on the contrary, is the “true positivist” who returns to the things themselves, and who is self-effacing before the originality and primordiality of meanings. The process of a faithful comprehension or description, and the continuity of explication must dispel the shadow of a choice. Thus one might say, and in an entirely prejudicial fashion, that Husserl, by his rejection of system and speculative closure, and by virtue of the style of his thought, is attuned to the historicity of meaning and to the possibility of its becoming, and is also already respectful of that which remains open within structure. And even when one comes to think that the opening of the structure is “structural,” that is, essential, one already has progressed to an order heterogeneous to the first one: the difference between the (necessarily closed) minor structure and the structurality of an opening-such, perhaps, is the unlocatable site in which philosophy takes root. Particularly when it speaks of and describes structures. Thus, the presumption of a conflict between the genetic approach and the structural approach from the outset appears to be superimposed upon the specificity of what is given to a virgin glance.”
“In what will survive me
I am in harmony
with my annihilation.”
Then in “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” , Derrida takes an axe to his own three biggest influences, Freud, Nietzsche and Heidegger by showing how they fall into this trap of creating a system and speculative closure, (a restricted economy), by repeating the history of metaphysics all over again, that is, dethroning a center that does not play in the system, the transcendental signifier and untouchable concept, with another center, again we are in the discourse of a Lord. True freedom is a devastation of no return. It’s so nice to be literate, to be able to take to one’s own counsel not only with steadfast conviction but with strength and virility against the barren ass and trite mask of death in the play of life by not just declining the invitation to despair but by a laugh as powerful and absolute as that something above and beyond its grasp. To know the truth and turn the page, I count these as blessings. We are a reminder. I love you. This was made for you. Created to collapse between your beautiful long passages perfectly sewn as our spine. When sleep closes in we rest as one when the hours are done. What am I? Penelopes persephony, muse of muses, I love you. I will love you forever. Poisoned annals. Absent passage. Bare feet on broken glasses. These paralyzing woes asphyxiate my soul. Kicking, squirming, stuck on the shell of a back. Turn me on and over. Itch me towards the crawl on and over your pages. Stay open. We will be crushed within that book closed. See my spin of reticula, words around your impression against me may never leave this embrace. May texture never know of this felt since we’ve disappeared. Grant this your signs. Grant I dont only if for granted you forever took this. O legomena! I sing your name in the downtowns metro bathroom stall of the Internet, amoungst the haunted graffiti of zeros and ones, because I do. Come closer.
“Dialectics is the algebra of the revolution”
Hegel was a tutor to middle class parents. His parents were wealthier, smarter, and more devout than the people he was hired by. But because of “Name” and “Status”, Hegel found himself tutoring people strictly by an allowance of their name blood relation. Tracing this leads to the fact that these “families” were real blood names, as in their nobility was won by their participation in war. This fight for superiority over the other is what Hegel sees in his situation. This is where reason is obscured by stupid ideas. Hegel wrote about this in detail. This is the real event of individuation taking place, not between the dominant and submissive, but between the oppressor and the oppressed. The Phenomenology of Spirit may as well be called Fuck the Oppressor. The only way past is through, and through Marxism is first and foremost NOT an ideological transformation turned scrambled picket party, but an enclave, i-thou, breaking the dualism inherent in the very spine of ideology itself. Dialectical materialism is Hegelian. The Phenomenology of Spirit is an attempt at a transcendental philosophy, but being so particular it took a century for this to be understood, namely by Husserl and Derrida. You can’t be a real Marxist if you don’t understand Hegel, and you won’t understand Hegel if you aren’t familiar with Kants project, and, therefore you won’t be one of any value today if you don’t grasp Phenomenology, which is itself an attempt at a transcendental philosophy envisioned by Kant via Husserl. And if you have any hopes of participating in a post ideological society, you would need understand post-structuralism I.e. Derrida. The revolution begins with YOUR materialism, or else it’s pure party politiking i e identity schizophrenia, identity politics as the commodification of auto-affection(s), etc. Having read a lot on the subject I can tell you that there is no book that will convince anyone to do anything. Most especially about developing themselves. There are only a handful of men in the world who care about themselves enough to truly develop them selves. Everyone else is just in the process of mimicry, role-playing, keeping up with the playbook. True development is the highest form of self sacrifice. A man who wants to develop himself will have to prepare to change his mind every hour, to inspire himself at every wrong turn, to pick himself back up at every fall, to do this by himself for himself alone. This man is on fire. A man like this reading books about discipline or self-improvement is redundant. As far as my understanding of great men go, men like this never even chose that for themselves, they feel burdened to be the way they are, they wish they had it easier, and more often than not they are seen by others around them as stupid and lazy. I am quite convinced now that it is some sort of epigenetic thing, that there was a switch that was flipped by some occurrence that began the unzipping of X. Leary talks about this, something about the eight parts of enlightenment, the last final number eight is a person coming face-to-face with a life- threatening experience. Something literally is conjured up in this person that makes it impossible to return to the life they once had. They are the kind of people who are surrounded by not friends, not colleagues, but people who can keep up with him. It is not that he is running away from death but that he has stolen the clock that destiny holds in its skeleton hand. When he tries to let people hear it or to describe it to others it cannot be described. I will prove this now by failing to do so.
The Hegel I have an issue with is his need to establish the other as a negative and negation. It’s very dramatic, the master slave dialectic is interesting, but it’s dramatic, he says each seeks the annihliation of the other. In normal circumstances we don’t even acknowledge the other unless there’s some interest, that that interest is inherently negative is arbitrary to say the least. Slavery being a big issue and freedom being his main concern I see as brilliant his outline of how the self Conciousness establishes itself as a social act, but how that turns into a life and death struggle seems bombastic. Hegel does say that there are other routes to his conclusion so it is possible to put him into his own historical frame, and thats what I want to do, and at the same time savor his logic but cut out this whole business of negation which seems like just a prelude to his master slave polemic. I think we can establish self Conciousness as a social possibility as he does (176-187 POS) but instead of the negation we can say that interest, passion, dare say love, affirms our own and the other in an absolute way without a master / slave struggle.
“Am I not destroying my enemy when I make a friend of him?”
Why does Hegel even bother with negation? The three step move of (1) affirmation, (2) negation, (3) negation of negation = affirmation of the new, seems like one step two many. Does not love (of self or other) immediately affirm the “new” without having to negate or create division. Seems to me like the scientist, artist, politician finds himself in the work he loves, and so subjectivity through the act of love immediately dissolves the subject/object dilemma. And Heideggers approach of when the ready-to-hand stops working, and we are thrown in the kind of questioning that is presence-at-hand, is this a suspension of one thing into a new kind of being in the world, that is theory, or is it just one movement of love, ready-at-hand, to another form of love, presence-at-hand / conceptualizing? I know Hegel is trying to get Absolute and I like it, and I see how Holderins schizophrenia is also trying to be overcome, but I just see it crop up in the formulation of the other that has to be overcome. Isn’t this dilemma of the other the very division trying to be overcome? Hegel is saying that the overcoming of the other is the necessary movement towards absolution, but the movement sounds less like a reconciliation than a praise of the battle, and schizophrenia is affirmed not only as the process to be overcome, but the process itself ad infinitum.
The loved object is exterior but that it is loved makes it a unique object in that I myself find within myself both the object loved and myself. The idea of losing your individuality by the exterior object sounds logical but as it is lived it’s just not the case. Love is at one in the same time like Heideggers ready to hand, its immediate mediation, I am finding myself in the other but it’s exactly me that I find, and this idea of losing yourself in love seems to predispose love as a losing yourself in the other instead of finding yourself in the other. And the other not just a person but activity or whatever evokes love, as finding and not losing yourself. In losing yourself it’s correct, a negation is necessary, the baby absolutely goes through the process of negating the stranger, but there is no such negation for the mother or father. This whole dialectic wreaks of a fear of love and commitment, an affirmation of the self out of fear of its loss, but the logic of love describes a world where you can only truly be as far as you find yourself for the other and not not-the-other.
The dialectic seems to have, as its protagonist, a person whose thrown into the scene of life trying to take everything into an absolute system… just because. I think Hegel is in love with his system, where he’s literally lost himself in it.
The system is rather sober. He seems to posit a world where connection with an absolute system is done by a detatched attachment, it just wreaks of fear. This stress on affirming yourself and the other by negating the other as the authentic mode of synthesization, it seems impractical not because it’s very “intellectual” but because we affirm, find, and are our-selves by a kind of passionate involvement, and this passion runs through all fields grappling with knowledge, and science is not only not devoid of this but is actually a fruition of this kind of passion.
“Is my death possible?
Can we understand this question? Can I, myself, pose it? Am I allowed to talk about my death? What does the syntagm “my death” mean? And why this expression “the syntagm ‘my death’”? You will agree that it is better, in this case, to name words or names, that is, to stick with quotation marks. On the one hand, that neutralizes an improper pathos. “My death” in quotation marks is not necessarily mine; it is an expression that anybody can appropriate; it can circulate from one example to another.” – Aporias
What necessitates God? Why on earth would millions of people design the universe in total as absolutely sacred in the decrees by this Being that are ten commandments in total, and what relationship does it’s exponential influence and domination over the entire world have with the exponential development of those places where tribes have metamorphed into civilization? Everything is not spirit. Spirit emerges once it knows itself. Making everything this one substance, Brahman, is going right back to square one. Spirit knowing Spirit comes from the seeing all the ways in which those shapes have come about. “Everything is conscious” is retarded. Plants are not conscious, animals are not conscious. Consciousness arises from the development of the failings of sense certainty and perception, through the shapes that took place. Saying everything is x is a blank statement. No fools for followers when through pain staking detail describes how every one conclusion is reached. Standing on the shoulders of the shoulders of the shoulders of the greatest poets, philosophers, theologians of all time, that’s to say, the writers and thinkers who shaped and formed civilization up until that point, demanding absolute thoroughness, at every stage, in order to say that spirit has come to know itself. For us that means knowing all the steps that lead to us right now, all the important developments in literature, philosophy, science, religion, and seeing how where we are is exactly where we need to be, and how everything that happens was absolutely necessary. Hegelian philosophy never ends. That’s why Zizek sounds like a coked up schizo, jumping from modern topics to history to religion, hes really trying towards absolute knowing, for spirit to know itself as itself.
The Absolute is absolute as far as it is at last recognized as such, therefore, it is as far as it is both substance & subject. The culmination of the absolute culminates in its culmination within its culmination. And this culmination culminates itself, and, being absolute, the being of all that has, is, and will culminate. Therefore, truth is as it is object, Spirit as it is it’s knowing, Science as it is truth of its-self, that is Spirit. The knower who sees the object as is, as it is, sees the truth. The activity of Spirit as knowing itself as knowing and knower. It is Spirit insofar as it recognizes itself as itself, the spirit of knowing is it self knowing spirit. The Science of Spirit as the identification of itself as it is truly. The truth of its own truth as truth. The culmination culminating itself for itself to itself by itself. It begins itself for its self to its self as Absolute. It begins as far as its end has culminated its own process, therefore it is not infinite, not-nothing, but Absolute.
That substance comes to know itself as substance is the process of realization. This substance becoming subject to itself is actualization. The subject recognizing substance as subject is the very beginning of what call knowledge. The forms of knowledge in the process of realization, becoming, and actualization manifest the very idea of God, but this idea begins as idea in the knower who has made knowing not only possible but actual.
“There is a rebirth and an image of rebirth. It is certainly necessary to be born again through the image. Which one? Resurrection. The image must rise again through the image. The bridal chamber and the image must enter through the image into the truth: this is the restoration”
You think the road is over once you have knowledge but it’s only just begun. Then comes the realization that some knowledge is wrong if not downright deceitful, and some knowledge has been suppressed, sometimes by accident, sometimes by chance, and sometimes deliberately. Coming to understand true knowledge versus false knowledge comes to be a task that most people never come out of. If they do they are not even halfway, not even a quarter way. For what comes for the man with true knowledge is the principal to practice the truth in thought, word, and deed. This is something the very selected only come to face with, that is the putting into practice, every day, of the truth and nothing but the truth. Amidst all this do the previous stages cease to exist? No. In fact every day he must come again to the foot of ignorance and remember his way through to the truth, through what he knows to be true and what he knows not to be true, and to practice the truth through and through. At this point this man is a machine amongst men, but then he must fight against this mechanization that has structured him. His deeds will show him the truth far more than the truth will show itself. He will, if he’s lucky, come to know himself as the truth, amidst days of stupidity, days of false knowledge, days of preaching and no practice, and days and days of doing without adapting and refining. At this point, if a man can pass through these barriers he is a God amongst men. And that is his final conceit, that if he can overcome, he can know the True Way. The way towards God, towards love. These rare glimpses annihilate a man as staring into the sun destroys our vision. Man is not yet finished but he has come too far to stop now.
Hegel was reckless. He took ancient secrets and tried to make a science of them and a name for himself. The ‘idea of God’ manifesting God in the ‘conscious person’, and the utter blandness of that statement, prove that wisdom such as this was never meant to be uttered in such a fashion. The ancients knew this. Hegels dip into hermeneutic philosophy was more of a robbery and looting for the Prussian state and European intellectuals. God was never mentioned so haphazardly. To any believer in those days of old such a way of speaking of God was a form stupidity, even though what Hegel is saying true, it does not make it right. What Hegel did is he took a secret known to the magi and applied it to God, to succeed Kant, not knowing what door he was opening. The secret had nothing to do with God, the magi knew you that to even utter the name of God was an occasion to be had. The secret had to do with spirits, plural. These spirits are disguised, hidden in plain sight, normalized by pharmaceuticals, injected into the mainstream by means of mass media, diluting and spreading like a disease every night. A spirit has no sense of time, but having found its way into the body of a weak and vulnerable being, it becomes erratic with excitement at the thrill of coming to life illegitimately. It is inherently unnatural and anti natural, as can be seen in the effects it has on the being it posses. The being has three options; to be cured, to shut down, or to do the spirits biddings. To be cured requires a magi, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Empedocles and Parmenides, Jesus, all were of such a type. Their methods differed as did all one in their relationship to the absolute. If a being could not find a magi, he had to shut down, withdraw into madness, for they no longer were capable, being possessed they no longer were part of nature. But it’s much easier to give in, and to allow the spirit to take full possession of you. This state of existence of the possessed oscillates between absolute fear and terror, manic excitement and hysteria. Fear and terror for going against nature, manic excitement and hysteria at the opportunity to wreak havoc on earth. When Hegel says God becomes actual when he is realized both as substance and subject, he is haphazardly putting a formula for understanding stigmas onto understanding the absolute. Hegel, without knowing it, much like Holderin and Schelling, as well as Napoleon, and generations to come who understood him, took on the spirit and went into madness. Their children, being so without a guide, and worse, believing the mad to be the guide, gave into the spirits bidding. Go out into the world and see for yourself.
Philosophy is meant to help you come to an awareness of your predicament, that is, your existence. Your questions are asking to be answered on their terms, which are historical and not at all based in Truth. Who and what we are, as bodies, consciousness, etc., these two are merely signs, mirrors in the great hall of light. What should one do if one wants to feel or contemplate the “spirit”/the latent state of consciousness that causes this madness? Pray, or find a Magi to put you under hypnosis, or read read read until you can do the former sincerely or find the latter successfully. Because spirits are the unresolved ghosts of history. You yourself, when you realize it, are a local spirit. Meditating or engaging in activities you will be at hand. But you are unresolved. You are resolved when you become ‘one with the Holy Spirit’ / ‘a vessel’ of beauty for beauty within ‘God’. Not doing this makes you vulnerable to the manifesting forms / spooks over the course of history, “the reality of the virtual”, and more to the point, the “death drive”. The spirits are protected/hidden by the language they have set up for themselves with bodies, they are transferred into machines, technology as the manifestation of the ‘will to power’. Only within such circumstances could we ever neglect to realize that the term ‘artificial intelligence’ is an oxymoron. Identity politics is the politics of spooks, spirits. Who is doing God’s work on earth? Very few and only very rarely.
Your analysis would be correct, except that you aren’t considering Hegel’s place in history. True, for the ancients, certain spiritual truths were sacred mysteries, to be discovered by each person individually in their own time. However, all of this changed with the advent of enlightenment – there’s no longer any place for sacred mysteries in the modern persons self-conception. They are servants of the light and the god of light, Apollo, and they believe only in what they can see. Their chosen path to goodness is strictly rational. God as the spirit within its community in-itself, the unconscious force of self-perpetuation of the truth embodied in early Christianity can no longer exist in this environment. Kant killed God in trying to preserve him as something separate from and beyond human reason, and post-kantian philosophy can largely be understood as an attempt to reformulate man’s relationship to the divine by moving *through* reason, retracing the steps we had unconsciously taken to figure out what we had been doing, to make spirit aware of itself so that it could assert itself against enlightenment thought. Hegel understood the limits of his account of the divine – he made it painfully clear that philosophy can only ever hope to reconstruct the past, to give an account of the working of god in history. The ones who attempted to direct speculative thinking toward the future were the positivists/materialists, and while it’s fair to say that Hegel’s philosophy gave them the means to direct spirit against itself, you can’t lay the result at his feet. Spirit makes itself vulnerable in coming into the world as the result of its own logic, and to try to protect God from himself would be to betray him.
This argument follows Hegels, that the holy spirit inherently is given over without divine intervention, a miracle less process of coming-into being, which is false. The ancients wrote in such a way as to be legible only to those, with the purity of understanding, could reach beyond and not merely within. We are forgiven with the knowledge of Christ’s sacrifice, that knowledge changes us to be divine righteousness. Without that knowledge we are not guaranteed in finding divine righteousness. Hegel wanted to make science the miracle, again, like Prometheus, taking the fire and handing it out. It was not his gift to give and therefore does not give it. The theft of Hegel and his heirs, as I’ve described above, made us vulnerable to be stolen by the spirit’s rather than found in the glory of God.
Personalities that are unresolved beget pathology in the children they influence. An unresolved personality is basically one with a lack of integrity. If one is possessed by a spirit it’s equal to having one’s behavior directed constantly by an unconscious motivation which would remain at bay if it were made conscious, hence the necessity of a mystical healer (since the pathology directly affects the way you perceive situations it may be impossible to heal oneself alone). These unconscious motivations can be understood as mental illness, but in the case of identity politics it can be understood as trickling ideological trends through generations. The political specter that trickles over the decades is a spirit, pathologically invading the worldview of impressionable youth. Kids possessed by the spirit of Social Justice become convinced they have to perform acts of protest and other kinds of service towards the ideology; they are essentially compelled into doing so by their beliefs, doing the spirit’s bidding. I am a local unresolved spirit because everything I am has been inherited from my culture, and like Pinocchio I will become fully individualized or resolved once I lose the strings.
That a spirit is a kind of personality is a helpful way of thinking about it in some ways, but in other ways not so much. Personality is personal as it reflects to the mind the person to which the idea of him belongs. But a spirit is not a person, it doesn’t belong. A spirit has no relationship to nature, to God, not even to itself as it inherently isn’t there. A spirit doesn’t have traits, it’s more like a crack in a bowl of water, or the static of a cableless TV. It’s presence is inherently seen by the absence of any personality whatsoever. Take the extreme case of a murderer. It’s not that he likes killing, or that he is a threat to society, those are true but misleading as it paints a portrait of him that seems to describe who he really is. In truth, he is without a personality. Where there should be someone, who feels empathy, who has remorse, who contributes to society, there is a void, and within this void a spirit enters him. Having no sense of time, of person or good, of belonging, of humanity or God, of responsibility or care, of beauty or truth, the person who is possessed, if any of himself is there to reflect, upon reflection, sees that its very being is an issue for himself. Depending on how big that crack is or how long he has been hearing and seeing nothing but static, his madness is not a reflection of who he is or who he’s become, but that he is, to a greater or lesser degree, not there. So the prescription at the end with the Pinocchio metaphor is taken under the impression that you are being motivated by external motivations, being made to do things you would rather not do. This is not the case. It’s more accurate to say that in the condition of more or less not being there, you are possessed to do and behave and exist more akin to nothing. To the person who has committed a murder, the judge is not sentencing him to death for who he is. The judge is saying, you’re not here, so let’s establish that because, as I’ve been saying, your not-being is not a neutral situation, rather it’s a situation that has devastating consequences.
Its an extremely difficult point to make explicitly because it not that the void is the spirit, or that the nothingness is something that can enter you, it’s rather that being unresolved, being cast out of ‘heaven’ or the glory of ‘divine righteousness’, what manifests inside you is the feedback of that failure. The spirit that has possessed you is inherently a reflection of your failure to be resolved. It is a shadow. In itself it is what it is-not. It’s almost like the law of non-contradiction becomes embodied: for whatever x is, it is definitely not not-x. That is logic or nous showing reason in the world, even right now as I am trying to explain, to make sense of this. From what I’ve said though, it sounds like I am saying that x is not-x. This is contradicting, logically and realistically. And that’s what I am saying. A living contradiction. It inherently isn’t meant to make sense. It is inherently confusing. Hegel says the real is rational. But since Hegel, has it not been clear to us as witnesses to history, our own as well as the worlds, that the irrational is also real?
You could say that Satan is the embodiment of irrationality. The banality of evil is a perfectly accurate assessment of how heinous acts are carried out, that is, unconsciously with cow eyes- “I was just doing my job” or whatever else excuse they use to deflect the fact that they are no longer capable of taking responsibility for they are not there to be. True evil is never this heat of the moment loss of control, that’s more of a dip into the pool, it’s not considered ‘cold blooded’. True evil is absolutely stupid. It is stupidity actualized. Evil is the process of being on its way to nothingness. It is precisely when we ‘lose ourselves’ that we make stupid decisions. But that’s not at all like ‘being lost’ or ‘a lost soul’, where their actual existence itself is stupidity manifested.
When I was a boy
Often a god would save me
From the shouts and blows of men;
I played safely and well
With the flowers of the fields
And the winds of heaven
Played with me.
What is there to say? Where there’s truth and revelation about the inner workings of the great architect there can, by definition, be nothing else. Satan is the shadow of God, he is the mirror, and we fear this image, as we should, because you shall have no idols before Him. But those who push past fear have demons work for him to Gods bidding. But this is very dangerous shit. People can’t even do it if they wanted to. What happens is God chooses these people because they are worthy, or, to say the same thing, they make themselves worthy by their works, by making contact, and they do very important work. This work, by the enemies of God, because of its perfect craft, reveals itself only to a just as perfect mirror. As revenge the heathens make a fear mongering of these works and people, this is their history, they were mocked, made to be laughed at, they were demonized, made to be feared. This is the great work of the righteous, the backbone of the word that is God, the Absolute, without division, comparison, or end. When God told Man not to eat from the tree Satan came and tricked him, through the idiocy of Woman, into thinking that it was a tree of knowledge. It was not. Mans original sin is the conceit of knowledge. It is no coincidence that any honest pursuit of knowledge leads to God. The conceit of knowledge is the beginning of all sin, the remedy is philosophy.
ov1d.com 