/lit/ - Literature

make sure they are disconnected if more than one
-I am bound in broken bonds, at liberty to move, yet deeply cut.
-I trek this battered road as a sinning scholastic, encumbered by unknown guilt.
-History was written in these woods; every broken branch was a tragedy and every overturned stone a monument to unseen effort.
-He, the last true raconteur, would never see a hearth of his own again.

>>10191556
this is a good post.

>*chime*
>come in
>captain…the men tell me that you have primed the rambledrive
>that’s right, #1. we are preparing to blast off for hypermemespace
>may i ask why
>you may
>ok…uh…why
>*dramatic pause* there is no why
>goddamnit man that’s not an answer
>you’re not wrong about that #1
>*sigh*
>rambledrive ready sir
>engage

1/4
nothing resists "deconstruction," including marriage. you can deconstruct that too. even peterson, the anti-deconstructionist supreme, will defend the institution of marriage by saying that it's not always about romantic love, it's about *survival.* of course he knows about the courtly and spiritual dimensions as well, and it's a sort of a grim point to make, but it's there.

societies need *order* on a fundamental level. i know that i am deeply divided against myself on this point also, because *order and progress* don't necessarily go hand in glove. they *should* - that is the ideal, and you would think that that would be the case - but when they don't (as may be the case today) things get unruly. i’m always trying to find a way to thread the needle, postulate some kind of society - or thinking - that would somehow combine both of these, but i really don’t think it’s possible.

it could even be the case that there is an individualist telos and a group or at least +1 kind of telos as well. i usually feel lost because i *want* to join some kind of order, but i resist - or betray - because of the temptation to ask/say, 'well, it doesn't *mean* anything except capital,' or, 'where is this going?' but these are misleading questions. the point of order isn't to 'go' anywhere: the point of order is continuance and regulation, stability through time: cyclical vs linear. order is evaluated through duration rather than ‘meaning.’ when we think of a golden age, perhaps we think of these things going hand in glove: happy people, happy civilizations, enlightenments, and so on. but are things like technical and scientific progress, for example, *ancillary* benefits…or, in the Grand Historical sense, the only things that matter?

the hardest part for any order may be domesticating the individual. in earlier times, this might not have been such an issue: there probably wouldn't have been so many progressives (as we understand them today) in 6C Western Europe because *times were harder.* we live in a profoundly individualist era now - the most individuated, democratized, emancipated, abstracted ever? - and the telos of the desiring individual is horizonless. *every* social order can be regarded as an experiment. and shit, maybe it is. viewed from the purview of capital and simulation, we have no reason, really, not to take a kind of holodeck perspective on everything. if everything is subject to change…if identity seems entirely liquid, and even implications that this is not the case tantamount to aggression - then what?