What’s the literary equivalent of this
>>24851337If you made a concrete pyramid and then faced it with skulls you could probably get it up to the size of the GPG. You want it to be visible from space I assume, so maybe space them a bit.
>>24849644after the industrial revolution, craftsmen and artisans were not as needed to create basic goods and so they turned their attention to intellectual/aesthetic goals. The focus of art became conceptual rather than purely about the techinal skill of the craftsmanship. Of course this resulted in a ton of pretentious wankery, but I don't think it's a bad thing that art has more conceptual aims now
>>24843976You're acting like no artist believes those things.You don't remember the claim that 9/11 was art in the most technical sense of the word?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Stockhausen#11_September_attacks>Well, what happened there is, of course – now all of you must adjust your brains – the biggest work of art there has ever been. The fact that spirits achieve with one act something which we in music could never dream of, that people practise ten years madly, fanatically for a concert. And then die. [Hesitantly.] And that is the greatest work of art that exists for the whole Cosmos. Just imagine what happened there. There are people who are so concentrated on this single performance, and then five thousand people are driven to Resurrection. In one moment. I couldn't do that. Compared to that, we are nothing, as composers. [...] It is a crime, you know of course, because the people did not agree to it. They did not come to the "concert". That is obvious. And nobody had told them: "You could be killed in the process."
>Litizens unironically defending and even praising the crude sculpture of a guy sucking his own dickPottery
>>24851610These are the sorts of people who enjoy webnovels.
>doesn't like allegory>likes the metamorphosisHow does that work?
>>24851460Schopenhauer clearly explains why allegory and categorical description is the path poetry needs to express Ideas and become sublime. Its not the case in pictorial or plastic art, but in writing allegory and metaphor are indispensable
What's it an allegory for?
Metamorphosis is expressionist not allegorical
>>24851460>"Nothing bores me more than political novels">writes Bend Sinister
>>24851460The Metamorphosis isn't an allegory.
I'll start with an obvious one. Great read.
"Lords of Chaos: The Bloody Rise of the Satanic Metal Underground" by Moynihan. Pretty fun read about the black metal retards in Norway.
>>24844183We made a chart some time ago, but I can't find it in my archives. Maybe go ask /mu/
>>24845136hey sweetie that's a DVD
>>24845068cool, didn't know fahey wrote.
>>24845749>>24847738will I like reading these even though I know jack shit about music theory and classical music?
Do any of you wear headphones while reading? Do you listen to music or rain sounds or something? If so, do you match it to the book you're reading?I have a pair of noise canceling earbuds that do a pretty good job of quietting the outside world. Sometimes I'll put on a little white noise too.
does every /lit/cel not have their own place? are we the poorest board?
>>248497372nd. /x/ has to be the poorest board. Or the richest. Only the wealthy and poor can entertain in such.
>>24844620>he doesnt listen to ambient music fitting the genre he reads.No wonder most of you guys are crusty and mean. You aint got no joy in ya!
>>24849737/fit/ is really poor as well. Some of the homegyms that get posted there look like taliban hideouts. Both are very cheap hobbies.
Most of the time i read in silence. When it happens that i want to read in a noisy place i put on either "soft piano" sounds or lo fi from youtube, just to cancel out the sounds from around me. But i don't like it, nothing beats reading in silence. This is one of the reasons i will never understand reading in public transport.
Previous: >>24841342
>>24851669Maybe he was telling falsities in bed
>>24851673You don't celebrate all saints day you fucking liar
>>24851681In a lot of places in Europe, All Saints is about the remembrance of your loved ones who passed away, even among completely secular people. Even if you don't visit cemeteries any other day, you almost certainly do on All Saints. And even if you don't, usually because it is not feasible practically, it is customary to light a candle or something at home or wherever you happen to be.
Anyone cool with letting me use their identity?
Poop corn
Is it legit? Does it help in better reflecting on the things you read?
>>24851462the dog track and EMT episode this season had me laughing my ass off but yeah overall it's way worse
>>24851409I don’t like seeing them old :(
>>24851402Buddhists always saw meditation as voiding your mind
>>24851581Well I'm not a Buddhist and I don't believe asceticism will free my eternal soul so I couldn't give a shit. Meditation has existed in the west independent from buddhism
>>24851386Yes because the modern media environment overstimulates
I just finished Harlot's Ghost by Norman Mailer. I don't know if his idea of Alpha and Omega is based on any real psychology, but out of all the philosophy and theology I've read, it's the only thing that makes sense. It has always felt like there are two different people in my mind fighting for control. I also agree with his description of narcissism. I've never been able to love or hate another person because I used it up on myself. When I read Stendhal, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche I thought there were some great ideas, but nothing like a profound revelation Mailer caused in me. Where should I go from here? I don't think novels are doing me much good. I would prefer to read something non-fiction. I already tried Plato, Aristotle, Lucretius, Schopenhauer, Kant and a bunch of Christian doctrine. I've avoided Frued because everything I heard sounded nonsensical. Is Jung any good? Or Epicurus? I've heard many interesting things about him. Would it be pointless after Lucretius? I feel like I'm wasting my life and need to discover my identity before I die. There's not enough time to read everything. I have no clue where to start with psychology and I'm not even sure it's any different than philosophy. Seems like the same thing under a different name. Science vs. metaphysics.
>>24848872You have to read Herman Hesse
>>24849019I always wanted to read Narcissus and Goldmund by Hesse and The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus. Would either of these help me? There are a million Greek and Roman poets I don't have time for. I still haven't gotten around to Virgil and Catullus. I also heard about a psychologist named Sherrington from an Aldous Huxley book on witch trials. Maybe worth reading? Or Huxley's (grand?)father? I heard about him in Proust's In Search of Lost Time. Seems like an important figure.
>>24849057crucial question here, how old are you
>>2485012025 and I'm not an inch closer to figuring anything out than when I was at 17. I know I'm lazy and stupid, but, God, have i tried. Most people don't even bother with philosophy, they already know their beliefs the moment they're born.
>>24848872what's so insightful about it?
Get the fuck in here faggots, it's autumn, it's Trakl time
>>24847953the twilight and autumnal forests are his most common motifs
>>24848309post your favourite
>>24843921The translations capture the original German version. While it's correct that muendens primarily use is about rivers, it is also commonly used metaphorically like in your translation
>>24850084Which English translation do you think are the best? Personally Daniel Simko's translation speaks to me but I am an ESL and don't know German
What do you guys think of Georg Heym?
Why hasn't he won the big one yet /lit/? He's more than deserving.
>>24847749You don't even know why you like it dipshit. No one with unironic bike-cuck psychology (as the book advocates) is a basket weaving forum user. Not even our trannys.You like it because you want to be seen as the sort of person who likes him.
>>24842420My Murakami > Your Murakami
>>24849253both Murakamis suck though. what a cursed surname
>>24848588Not the same anon, but he's just comfy. And it's ok to be comfy.
>>24842420>He's more than deserving>Russians holding the line against NATO>China advancing without ceding an inch to liberalism.>America embroiled in dysfunctional, postmodern Caesarism >only 30 years after history "ended"The only thing fukyomama is deserving of is a one-way plane ride back to nipstan.
Why is it so unusual in the history of thought for someone to be so thoroughly God-affirming yet so perfectly irreligious?After Plotinus I can think of very few, and all are relatively recent. Even the germans, or the french spiritualists (think Ravaisson, Bergson) seem to remain open to religiosity on principle. Notably, Eric Perl (neoplatonism scholar, former Roman Catholic) has apostasized in recent years, and theologian David Bentley Hart (though for some mysterious reason he still insists on calling himself a christian) does not seem terribly convinced about things like exclusivism or the real efficacy of religious rituals. But by and large, people who are willing to admit that the world depends on a principle (call it what you want, really) tend to be open to or convinced of the notion that said principle could manifest or reveal itself in another special, priviledged way, that it could somehow act no longer as the principle, but as a being among beings, intervening among them and upon them. This is obviously a very counterintuitive idea, and actually extremely hard to reconcile with what is commonly called "classical theism". It's not just that there is a gap between say, the quinque viae and religion, it's that there is an apparent (and I would say, probably actual) contradiction between the latter and any framework in which the former have any meaning.So what gives? My bet is that historically most people working/writing in this field were initially religious and picked it up as apologetics. But they tended to surreptitiously equate theism and religion, metaphysics with legalism, ethics with casuistry. This, is turn, is off-putting to people who might otherwise have been interested in the topic, and, having been convinced that theology was essentially a part of religion, discard it altogether.(Of course I'm not counting the deist thing as that has little to do with actual metaphysics/theology.)
>>24850232this is an interesting argument. I myself am on the fence regarding religion, and always felt there was some dishonesty in popular apologetics. It's easy enough to see that proving god does not prove christianity, but it's the first time I've seen someone claim that there was an actual contradiction...anyhow, bumping so it gets a response
>But by and large, people who are willing to admit that the world depends on a principle (call it what you want, really) tend to be open to or convinced of the notion that said principle could manifest or reveal itself in another special, priviledged way, that it could somehow act no longer as the principle, but as a being among beings, intervening among them and upon them.The question I think is if we recognize a principle: fideism and the religions of the book "admit" a principle and supplement this admission with "special", legalistically and dogmatically circumscribed revelation. But if we recognize a principle it has already revealed itself to us, and not generically but at least incipiently particularly, existentially, not as "merely" a being among beings but as itself and therefore in a way we cannot foreknow, foretell. I am now skeptical that "classical theism" is more than a homogenized product that tries to flatten Judaism, Christianity and philosophical paganism (even including Indian traditions, etc) into closer company than they will bear. I think you are right with the field of classical theism being the resort of apologists. >>24842579>I would say that the defining feature of religiosity is holding dear the notion that the principle could or did intervene discretely and intra-historically. The flip side of this is that certain beings, things, events, enjoy a "relationship" to the principle that differs in kind from that of other things. This understanding to me is an artefact of the paradigm of "classical theism". It's euphemistically referring to the Incarnation: the paradigm of "discrete" (utterly human and utterly divine, bodily, unique) and historical (structuring history and in the future ending it) revelation. This is not a generalizeable understanding of "revelation" or "religion". This is why you incline to attribute other understandings that depart from "classical theism" to "byproducts of culture", "folk belief". That forms of divine revelation aren't deducible but also aren't fixed in a single holy book to be authoritatively interpreted by a certain institution in a form ultimately reconcilable with Hebrew traditions is not necessarily unreflective, indifferent "folk belief". >One can perfectly believe in mythical entities and occult practices, and merely consider them a mysterious part of the sublunar world. You can try to treat them in a "rationalistic", quasi-scientific way but that ends up being itself superstitious and somewhat pointless, like trying to hunt down bigfoot or throw fireballs.
>>24850229>God is wholly present to all and the mere fact of thought or action shows that one already knows all there is to know.The philosophical reasoning that conduces to this understanding was a particular line of thought or action, it was a revelation "different" "in kind" somehow, before which the person in question did not understand themselves or the divine the way they do after. The divine literally was not present to them the same way before and after, other thoughts or actions were not symbols of the divine to them, they learned more and still can learn more, desire to learn more, desire the desireable: is its transcendence violated, is it more someplace than another, does it do two things thereby? Do I know beforehand how to learn more, am I myself a god by this initial revelation, can I foretell how I will draw closer to the divine, how it will communicate to me? I must trust myself, the divine, and other people to guide me.
>>24851378>I am now skeptical that "classical theism" is more than a homogenized product that tries to flatten Judaism, Christianity and philosophical paganism (even including Indian traditions, etc) into closer company than they will bear. I think you are right with the field of classical theism being the resort of apologists.There is definitely such a thing as philosophical theism. There have been philosophical theists who were irreligious.Now of course I'm also making the claim that it is incompatible with religion, which is why I agree that philosophical theism construed as a doctrine capable of being built upon by religion is an artifact of the apologists. I agree that it cannot be extracted from any religion taken as a whole.>That forms of divine revelation aren't deducible but also aren't fixed in a single holy book to be authoritatively interpreted by a certain institution in a form ultimately reconcilable with Hebrew traditions is not necessarily unreflective, indifferent "folk belief"I would say this is beside the point, which is that the basis of what I'm calling religion is belief that God did or could do *something*. This goes much beyond christianity. One could perfectly imagine a person outside of any established religion and who nonetheless believes that God did or said this or that. That's what I'm calling a religious attitude.>You can try to treat them in a "rationalistic", quasi-scientific way but that ends up being itself superstitious and somewhat pointless, like trying to hunt down bigfoot or throw fireballs.I don't see how. I'm not even making any specific claim about method, though I guess since things are what are knowable, you could say I'm being scientific about it. I'm simply saying that what happens to things finds the entirety of its proximal explanation, or if you prefer, the entire content of said explanation, in things.
>>24851381What you're speaking about is a process of thematization. I'd simply say that to think about God is to think about a concept, and that there is no logical reason there should be any practical difference between someone who has thematized their belief in God, and someone who believes in God implicitly, as anyone does.
post some nice covers
>>24849718Really nice
>peak>mid>slop>crash out>unaliveWhat the hell is up with modern speech turning into newspeak straight out of 1984? The word "ungood" genuinely wouldn't look too out of place with all the neologisms I just listed.
new niggas come up with new words for their generation until it becomes unctalk and then replaced by the next crop nah mean
>>24850324You got what he didn’t. The self censorship race against algos is genuinely disturbing. >unalive>graped>pdf file>>24850844The censoring of all these topics is veering close to forced positivity. That’s what the companies want after the backlash against social media harms. They want 8 billion cattle bleating about positive things as they consume their ads. “Serious talk” goes in the modern memory hole of shadowbans and low visibility classing. How far is that really from a totalitarian regime censoring reality?I’m sick of the gaza shit but censoring mentions of genocide whole hog is so blatantly evil it’s crazy to see people accept it. Meanwhile the Bongs openly talk about loving censorship and wanting more of it. “Problem” opinions literally get policed. Amerifats have a choir of conservatives saying they want to ban opinions and protest. Cheeto himself argues being critical of the president or regime is unlawful. Of course libshits shouldn’t be too smug since their politicians also love opinion censoring just different opinions. Cue the whole trans debate for instance. Actual free speech online was an anomaly they are desperate to control or shut down.
>>24850988WE'RE ALL GONNA MAKE ITHYPEROPTIMISMSUNSHINE AND DAISIESDON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE CORPSESHARHARHAHRAHRHARHRHARHRHARHARHRHARHRHARHARHRHARHRHARHARHARHRIT'S GIVING NEO-OPTIMISM VIBES FR NO CAPSUPERFICIAL DOGSHIT
>>24850324That's what I thought too, maybe cook/cooked would fit also
>>24850324And of those, "unalive" is pushed because social media will throw up red flags if you say "die" in any context.
Is Buddhism the most pessimistic of all the sacred traditions in existence?>no explanation for 'samsara'/contingent existence to begin with, if you try to ponder or believe in a cosmogonic account you're insane and trapped in delusion>this samsara is meaningless and our lives are always caught in suffering no matter what, dukkha is the sole enduring truth of this world>transient existence caught between different modes of being, continuity between gods/devas, humans, animals, etc>Mahayana tries to make Buddhas into the equivalent of deities/benevolent gods I guess>you have absolute free will to escape samsara if you wish, but that may take many lifetimes. or you're born into a society without buddhist teaching, and if you can't find one elsewhere, you're screwed>even beauty, goodness and the wonder inherent in existence is a trap. it makes you temporarily forget dukkha and then you expend your good karmic 'points' and go to hell on the rebound, like if you're reborn as a deva >the Good is just one side of the duality, Nirvana is beyond bothMeanwhile, Neoplatonism or Tantric Shaivism or Advaita Vedanta have a similar totally transcendent dimension to their practice, but they revere the world and believe it to be inherently good and a ladder to be climbed via appreciation/love/gratitude and ultimately knowledge of the divine author (not separated from self) behind it. The world IS to be left behind but it isn't some Gnostic-tier nightmare trap or as dark as Buddhism says Samsara to be. Am I in delusion as Buddhists would believe? I used to be quite hostile to Buddhism on account of dogmatic metaphysical principles but don't view it the same way anymore. The actual ascetic practice is heroic. But this particular attitude toward the cosmos is a significant hurdle
>>24850624Part of it is psychological states (even Thanissaro Bhikkhu who is terrified of annihilation admits this) but it's also about the different "lives" you lead. When the Buddha says this is the last birth for me, he is also saying (not saying exclusively necessarily) that he is not going to have another "life" as a householder, or a tradesman or a warrior or as a prince, etc. We all of us have different lives within the lives as a succession within the one that ends with old age and death. For monks, there is always the temptation of returning to the life of a householder, to find a woman, get married, etc. So the statement that "this is the last birth" also means a total committment to the life of an ascetic, that there is no more desire or reason to begin another life.
>>24851026Buddhism rejects dogma because it understands that all fixed beliefs are just attachments in disguise. Every ideology, every rigid system of thought is just another trap—another illusion mistaken for truth. Unlike religions that demand blind faith in doctrine, Buddhism is a method, a way of seeing, not a set of commandments to obey. Even its core teachings, from the Four Noble Truths to the Eightfold Path, are not meant to be worshipped but used as tools, and then discarded once their purpose is fulfilled. The moment someone clings to Buddhism as an identity, as a set of absolute truths, they have already missed the point. That’s why it doesn’t try to impose a single answer or force a universal meaning onto existence—it only points the way and leaves the journey to the one walking it.This anti-dogmatic nature extends even to nirvana itself. Unlike heaven or salvation, nirvana isn’t something to be described, grasped, or defined—it is beyond language, beyond concepts, beyond the limits of the mind trying to contain it. The moment someone tries to put it into words, they have already reduced it to something it is not. This is why Buddhist texts constantly negate—nirvana is not this, not that, not a place, not an experience, not a void, not existence. Because to define it would be to turn it into another illusion, another attachment. It is not something to be believed in, but something to be realized, something that can only be known by direct experience. Unlike other spiritual traditions that trap people in words and dogma, Buddhism refuses to let even its highest truth become a cage.
>>24851036No point in practicing it then.
>>24851237True. Just exist in the now and don't worry about it.
>>24850345Jesus never fulfilled the prophecy and no where does it mention a second coming. All four gospels give conflicting accounts of the resurrection and the eyewitnesses is just paul saying 500 people saw him not 500 individual accounts retard. Matthew and luke also give conflicting genealogies of jesus trying to link him with David. If the bible cant even be logically or theologically consistent then it cannot be the infallible word of god or a reliable source of knowledge. Which means all this is retarded jew babble that doesn't mean shit
>cover>cover japan :O
We need Rotkho's paintings on the cover.
>>24851336>Chatgpt, write something funny in response to this image
>>24850515I doubt he would be mad; whenever I see a raven I think of Poe - that's an immortality few can achieve.
>>24851444bottom right is anime trash
>>24850508Translations of Book of the New Sun.
A thread for writing literary fiction, non-fiction, and other genres, and discussion of literary craft. Rococo editionPrevious: n/aBe polite and cordial. Do not feed the trolls. Share your work, but retain some grace and limit yourself. Do not spam.Follow thread prompts and discuss these exercises to enrich our understanding of the craft. Thread prompt:Write a scene where a small, ordinary object (a ticket stub, dented spoon, chipped mug) reveals a secret about the narrator. Begin in medias res with a sensory detail. End with a line that reframes the object’s meaning.
>>24851431>Red and white, the text read "Hello, my name is:". Below that, "OP" was scribbled in black sharpie.This punctuation is the sign of a writer who cares about the craft.
How many times have I renounced you? Not enough. Here you are before me. How many times must I push you away?Not enough. Here you are before me. How many times must I walk away?Not enough. Here you are before me.
>>24851438>implying
>>24851315I have a fear of missing out lately, no, not of the late night parties and concerts filled with strangers you might never meet again, revolving like bright wheels of carnival cheese to come and delight. I fear there’s something beyond my scope of vision, the profound is happening that can only be captured from spending my remaining evenings sitting in a plastic lawn chair on the edge of a lake or swamp observing all life. Great cycles of birth and death happening over a matter of hours or days, creeping vines withering and birds flying from nests. Inside is the dead space, the silent tunnel where air stagnates. Even now, the loons under ferns wait out a gentle rain without me truly knowing. Starting tonight, surrounded by the sun’s nightly whimper over water, I will let a single piece of light bounce off a rock and enter my eye, where it will remain for 20 years or more.
>>24851531idgi
