It has been more than a year since I overcame nihilism once and for all. It is beyond atheism and theism, a synthesis of the dead verbs of “creator” and “creation” into an immanent living creating, a perception of existence as self-creating art. It came from following the threads of evolution, change, and experience to their utmost conclusion.
I have smelled the future: a social singularity, recursive self-improvement in the informational networks of human societies. It is a creative singularity, and a human singularity: evolution evolved. It will be driven by recursive self-improvement in dividuals, a chain reaction of mass enlightenment, the most self-actualized uplifting all those around them. The future is brighter than we have ever dreamed.
My counterpart and I are searching for each other, and will by necessity find each other. We’re both searchers at our core, questers and questioners, good at not only searching for what we desire, but searching for desires worth desiring and questioning our questions. We are treasure hunters, and we search for what is truly valuable. Thus, we will eventually find each other as our mutual quests converge. All I know is that we haven’t met yet.
The Creator is the projection of the error of ownership to the celestial sphere to justify itself, The Creator only exists as cosmic plagiarism of not only its own existence but all existence. Because The Creator can only exist in this way, anything that doesn’t affirm its lie is antagonistic to it, which includes existence itself, and so the psychology of The Creator is that of omniphobia: fear and hatred of all existence, and a compulsion to replace all existence with an appearance of itself. The Creator is the process of simulacra abstracted to the totality, and manifests in the concept of afterlife: God’s nonexistant hyperreality that is deemed the goal of all subjects. God’s ultimate manifestation is omnicide: the after-life that comes after its total annihilation.
Modern atheism isn’t atheistic: it superficially rejects The Creator but leaves an orphaned creation, framing the human subject as the creator of meaning that imposes its will to power onto a passive, meaningless existence. True atheism is post-atheism, a synthesis of the dead nouns of creator and creation into an ever-becoming creating and an immanent creativity that doesn’t need to be conscious to create. A “creator” is just as much created by the act of creating as the “creation,” and both are comprised not of a linear hierarchy of being but of horizontal relationships between all things past and present. The universe is co-created by all becomings it contains, and so the alienation of the creator-creation dichotomy is solved by metaphysical egalitarianism. The worldview that comes from this is of the universe being of continually self-creating art, a pancreativism and a spirituality that follows from it, and an engagement with life as such. Rather than the human subject as being a thing-in-itself, of mere self-representation, human consciousness is creativity that has found a way to fold on itself in a strange loop of self-creativity, evolution itself evolved.
Out of the ashes of the Great Disillusioment we’re in will necessarily come a pancreativist movement as post-atheism and post-postmodernism. We are early adopters of this movement that will coalesce into a heterarchical human singularity: recursive self-improvement in human relationships that renders hierarchical power structures completely obsolete, fueled by exponentially increasing informational change and massive interconnectivity that hierarchy is increasingly inept at utilizing. The future is massively distributed and peer-to-peer, the crowd as the cloud.
por Alex Antunes
O brasil se resume (como a humanidade de resto, mas aqui é em geral menos disfarçado) a um embate entre ordem, ordenamento (direita, por definição) e caos, desconstrução (esquerda, por definição, pelo menos nos sistemas esotéricos).
O que seria uma convergência/ síntese positiva? uma ‘ordem benévola’, com um certo apreço pelo ordenamento formal das coisas, mas com um olho sagaz para o caos (notemos que em sua parte mais, digamos, macunaímica, o governo lula teve seu sucesso baseado exatamente nisso; e não em valores de benevolência e ordenamento puros, mas com um apreço intuitivo pelo paradoxo – mas esses momentos de equilíbrio são necessariamente fugazes).
A que se deve o ascenso da direita política, no mundo exterior? no meu entender, ao fato de que essa esquerda política, pela autocontaminação do autoritarismo das nomenklaturas, se tornou numa paródia da direita (sendo as duas alas do monoteísmo cristão, digamos, uma com mais apreço pela culpa e punição cristã do que pela eficiência linear protestante).
Claro que a história das esquerdas no século passado não é linear; a cisão do che com fidel (caso de exportação da lógica da nomenklatura soviética) é um exemplo, ele que em sua jornada internacionalista suicida reincorporava elementos da intervenção caótica/ voluntarista, justificada por um idealismo ingênuo.
Para mim, o ascenso da direita é alimentado pelo irrealismo/ idealismo da esquerda, cujas propostas tanto de pacificação social quanto de conflagração revolucionária floparam (e aí compreendemos como o projeto lula, para funcionar e enquanto funcionou, tinha mesmo é que fazer essa estranha síntese hipster-stalinista, que ainda vemos).
Ou seja, inventar uma nova esquerda é necessário. ou melhor, revelá-la, a essa esquerda de uma inteligência desassombrada e amiga do caos real (e não manipuladora viciosa do medo gerado pela ameaça de caos), para muito além e nada interseccional do que se chama de ‘esquerda’ hoje. ou seja, a esquerda sou eu.
“All stories are true, every last one of them. All myths, all legends, all fables. If you believe them true, then they are true. If you don’t believe them, then all that can be said is that they are true for someone else.” –Dave Sim
“Now I think I understand. What I was sensing was the manifold of partially actualized realities lying tangent to what evidently is the most actualized one, the one wich the majority of us, by consensus gentium, agree on. Although originally I presumed that thedifferences between these worlds was caused entirely by the subjectivity of the various human viewpoints, it did not take me long to open the question as to whether it might not be more than that -that in fact plural realities did exist superimposed onto one another like so many film transparencies. What I still do not grasp, however, is how one reality…
Ver o post original 1.113 mais palavras