(Source: rocktunes, via weisstonedimmaculate)

FULL RESSENTIMENT

(Source: dumbassfils)

"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they’ve always worked for me."

Hunter S. Thompson

cept

(Source: mangyhalfbreedremus)

(Source: theycallmegomer)

Check out all the notes these posts have.

… and then back to the stream of whatever on the dash.

I guess they’re all of the same nature anyway.

There’s this trace of a meta joke that keeps peaking into the foreground like flirting with me and mostly the only thing it’s revealing of itself is that it’s the meta joke to end all meta jokes and I’m really peeved because I want them really bad to all go away they’re so redundant and now I’m feeling a disgust like maybe this is itself the meta joke and it lied to me about how it’s the end but this is the end if I stop now but maybe if I keep going I’ll strike gold and banish them for good or maybe they’re just me and I want myself to go away but that’s what they want me to think but this is what they want me to think but that’s what they want me to think. This is in no way a meta joke post, really, it’s not. It was intended to be sad because I started writing it when I was at the above-mentioned point of disgust but then right near the time I got to the point of recording that point of disgust it reared its non-infinity of a head again like I mentioned in the beginning of it or rather this now and I felt hope like maybe I could write this out maybe that way I could be more careful and tiptoe gingerly and avoid getting (re)ensnared in this eternal boobytrap by steadying the stream of consciousness down a notch by aligning its pace with my slower typing speed. I give up again. I’m writing this now I now realize as a plea for someone to unclamp me and I wish I could shape reality to metaphors because then I would just gnaw my foot off.

thewww asked: I don't think the internal Father has to be in the sky but in Qi Gong for whatever reason the energy from overhead is considered masculine and feminine up from the ground is masculine. I don't know yet why this is, and I don't pray to God the Father, I pray to the void of God or 'everything.' Taoists, Jungians, many others say there's this internal family system, seems reasonable, pagans would say skillful prayer requires bringing that out to address specific archetypal elements. It's work.

I’m not able to with sincerity suspend myself from myself for very long or to enough of an extent to immerse in the belief that when I’m praying I’m not praying to myself the pray-er. It’s like a docility I represent to myself as a dignified hyperconsciousness. Even when I try to pray to the void/nothing/everything—even my own goddamn unreflected-upon sarcastic self-reflexive constituted Divine—I’m near-immediately deterred from serious commitment to it for the same reason I am to God as Father: I can’t believe that I can expect that He/It is going to be receptive to me… because He/It is me. I can feel a part of me that’s expanding and conquering that habit, though, little by little. It is work. Bound up as/with that said part of me is a No Excuses policy. That’s probably the core insight I’ve taken from my studies in existentialism, which I feel religious about above all else. The work is not making excuses for deviating from that policy. So it’s difficult to pull off, being the one self that I am, but it’s just that: difficult - impossible is just one of those excuses. Man, Jung fuckin lucked out getting globally dumped by Freud. I wish something that fortuitous would happen to me so I could hit rock bottom and get it over with instead of continuing on gliding inches above it my stupid lovely self only letting me get my wings scraped from time to time.

"Whatever the risk of corruption from intercourse with the world around, such a risk must be encountered if a great idea is duly to be understood, and much more if it is to be fully exhibited. It is elicited and expanded by trial, and battles into perfection and supremacy… . In time it enters upon strange territory; points of controversy alter their bearing; parties rise and fall around it; dangers and hopes appear in new relations; and old principles reappear under new forms. It changes with them in order to remain the same. In a higher world it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often."

John Henry Newman (via aintthatfine)

lookit you all, brainlickers

sinthematica:

oooooooh! look what im reading oooooh!!

starting my morning right with some raw envy and fibrous resentment.

i read somewhere that we should cut down on rich sarcasm as it clogs the truth. there’s a new study every month though so pfff.

thewww asked: God is real in more ways than God is unreal. Even the anthro-sky-denizen is effectively real as an internal Father and as a set of realized power structures, which feed back into the imagination and give it power. What we might ask now is, how does prayer work, and what happens as society detaches so much from its imagination, imagination not being free but populated with a host of entities?

I’m reluctant to believe that God’s real in more ways than He’s unreal (or vice versa) because I agree with your disagreement with me—an agreement of which I disagree with and anticipate you to agree then disagree with me about - which is to say, the incarnation of God that is your claim that God is real in more ways than God is unreal instinctively resonates with me (is real to me) but itself directs me to the discovery that it is implicitly (by virtue of its status as a statement alone) positing that God is unreal.

Marcel and James have tipped me off about the legitimacy of said denizen but I struggle in the attempt to take myself seriously when anthropomorphizing the sky/myself (even though that’s the format my experience is set in at bottom by default). Any guidance on that would be appreciated. I’m starting to solidify the faith that my atheism is able to be weeded out.

stickyembraces:

Analytic vs. Continental Philosophy, #2

(In nr. #1 I mentioned that I am aware of the severe problems with the ‘analytic/continental’ distinction and that I don’t need angry messages about them, but it appears people really wanted to write them anyway. I did prefer those angry messages to the angry messages from the Lacanian crowd though.)

(via a-weltanschauung)

“And that is my view about God.

He does know there is a God, though: it’s implied in his very being there (existing), in his intrinsically purposeful being there (that purpose happening to be to negate the fact that he’s there and in being there being there for a purpose). Unbeknownst to him he’s not trying to uproot God/religion, he’s trying to clarify thus. Taking his cue from Russel, he neglects to recognize that his own worldview is itself religion thus formulating his argument from the standpoint of an elite member of The Enlightened gifted with a bullshit-piercer of a brain. Both he and the hypothetical fund’y interlocutor are operating according to the presupposition that ‘God’ is like that anthropomorphic cloud denizen conception, so in one sense I respect the analogy in that it at least might prompt the fund’y to question unreflective convictions instilled by authority, but I have a beef with the reduction of one’s belief in God—that is, everything one cherishes, that is, one’s whole way of purposefully being there—to something as ludicrous as the plausibility of an invisible teapot in orbit. Of course God is going to be a contradictory, fantastical notion when he presupposes that He’s an “object” “out there” that we should be able to feel in some way with our senses from a 3rd-person perspective because God is felt 1st-personally as feeling. So, no, I don’t think that my experience of being here is at all like a giant teapot in orbit. That seems like a fantastical insinuation in fact. Certainly not rigorous & objective, and if I may humbly challenge a great logician in his own terms: it sounds like a category error. There’s nestled another devastating fallacy, though: Say that this detached materialo-positivism gets off the ground and is a Wild Success, spreading like the subjective superstitions of yore of which it in turn gradually dethrones and on a talkshow some smug gifted devil standing on the shoulders of giants asks, “Where is your proof for the burden of proof?”

(Source: 3swallows, via soycrates)

"You know why my show is good? Because the network officials say you’re not smart enough to get what I’m doing, and every day I fight for you. I tell them how smart you are. Turns out, I was wrong. You people are stupid."

Dave Chappelle

"It takes centuries to invent the primitive."

Don Delillo

Tumblr Crushes

Favorite artist: tibets

Favorite writer: sacreamour

Favorite philosopher: reblooged

Favorite comedian: richwhitelesbian

Favorite quote poster: slothnorentropy