/lit/ - Literature

How do we justify suspending our imagination long enough to have an attachment to a character in a book for the time when something critical happens to them?

Isn't that a some kind of little psychotic?

>>7225373
Cornbread chewing

>>7228230
Worth the time and effort until you start getting erotic

At which point you might as well watch porn for the plot

A memorandum on Reading:
From a slutty dirty sexy reader perspective there is the ever looming natural disaster of being uninterested in the slow pace of a book; this usually contains the fallout of being interested in youth fiction novels as they carry a much more full plot line and dialog in only the critical hinges of the book, this is a critical error in judgement in what is the emotionally cathartic error in reading in that one should be not swayed by the constant youth of life and instead find constance in ones book for the narration of the for the positive placebo of the resentfulness of age; when this is acquired the worries of what will happen to your current character fade into finding resolution to their problems from experience which ideally, and this is my personal opinion, will result in the new age of fiction writing where the books in question take on new answers to their plots and resolutions to their characters; one can remark on how this potential development could be a stand fast testament to ones own writing abilities in keeping the pace of the original book while giving potentially new emotional involvement from the reader.

>what do you think of this

>>7217533
Fear is the great irony of belief in that if you don't believe you fear you will and if you do believe you fear you won't.

Ultimately it's just to be just in arguments for and against the stances of the afterlife and what life looks like it should yield in accordance with such.

It's just a stint into the philosophies and their potential allegories in regards to emotion

>The only way to read is to question what you read
A memorandum on the background of happiness:
Now in divulging what happiness is we encounter that it is something of a transparent shell of awareness that operates with soap bubble features so to speak, as in to say that it is gracing the surface of the subject in questions holding and has a simple permission sequence of accessing the inside, but at the fact of slicing into the surface of the allegory in question and giving a friction of awareness to whom that is noting the contents of the bubble which can just as easily be deduced has giving a bit of perspective tension to the area around the bubble- but there's something shining about to innards of the bubble, and that can be said to be the contrived partial perspective of the one whom is noting the nature of the refraction of the bubble, which is: gentle anger, and I use those terms as to the explicit ends of each having the others inferred intensity; this note of a psychedelic instrument of where gentleness is the key to the holding and enjoying of the tunes of swirls that the bubble plays is the functioning base of the, so to speak, passive dabbing on the keys, which is simply pressure; the intensity of what is happening as you empathize with the safety or familiarity of your environment combined with the obscureness of that which is outside being inside something so placidly can hold a definition of what can be said to peak your curiosity in that way of what is a gentle aggression (albeit it be a little more innocent in happiness then it is in curiosity which is a more of conspirance), but this peaking is an empathy pinnacle, it endows you in its time frame as a self forgiving and finding your place of identity as flawless and perfected beyond care, now that can span a lot of situations but is never the less a true gem of the variety of natures of the passive enlightenment that can be sought after and found.

A memorandum on the background of happiness:
Now in divulging what happiness is we encounter that it is something of a transparent shell of awareness that operates with soap bubble awareness, so to speak, as in to say that it is gracing the surface of the subject in questions holding and has a simple permission sequence of accessing the inside, but at the fact of slicing into the surface of the allegory in question and giving a friction of awareness to whom that is noting the contents of the bubble which can just as easily be deduced has giving a bit of perspective tension to the area around the bubble- but there's something shining about to innards of the bubble, and that can be said to be the contrived partial perspective of the one whom is noting the nature of the refraction of the bubble, which is: gentle anger, and I use those terms as to the explicit ends of each having the others inferred intensity; this note of a psychedelic instrument of where gentleness is the key to the holding and enjoying of the tunes of swirls that the bubble plays is the functioning base of the, so to speak, passive dabbing on the keys, which is simply pressure; the intensity of what is happening as you empathize with the safety or familiarity of your environment combined with the obscureness of that which is outside being inside something so placidly can hold a definition of what can be said to peak your curiosity in that way of what is a gentle aggression (albeit it be a little more innocent in happiness then it is in curiosity which is a more of conspirance), but this peaking is an empathy pinnacle, it endows you in its time frame as a self forgiving and finding your place of identity as flawless and perfected beyond care, now that can span a lot of situations but is never the less a true gem of the variety of natures of the passive enlightenment that can be sought after and found.

>>7183800
>But somehow we're doing fine rejecting final causality.
>implying continuum of causality isn't a thing
>being this pleb

>>7171168
>OP
One and Zero and their comparison of from anything to entirety

>>7181798
I made an observation on how gangsters of nowadays are eachothers ubermench in how they see themselves

>>7186103
It's when arrogance meets a self comparison in a compadre

>>7160881
Every Thing
>at once
>in all places
>at all times
is No One Thing
>no individual thing
>nothing
as an Idea

Would you like a sick collectively emphasised rendition of these nodes?

DRUNK PHILOSOPHY THREAD!
THREE DRINK MINIMUM AND YOUR PHILOSOPHY MUST BE AS COUNTER TYPICAL PERSPECTIVE AS POSSIBLE~!
Here I outline how typical objects existing in space are aggressive mother f*ckers

On Disruption:
The hostility of disruption as a focal point of a venue but not a force, as to say not having a frequency of impact but instead being more of a passive field of focus, can be determined to be something of a nature that is that of an intuition of what is solid; this correlation as a subject being in relation to another to the point of it being dominant yielding only to a correction by something of a more edge residing presence to the point of its, as mentioned hostility to it's passive surroundings, and as the hostility is meant as to mean unyielding and obstructing to the fluctuations that are constant to it's production but only negotiable by the as mentioned more determinable expressions in reality of this self determined freedom of displacement of philosophy of psychology of a given object can only be corrected by more easily correctable premises in reality, now this all goes as far to say that the more undetermined a body is the more available it is to the determining bodies that exist, that being said, again, they retain an air of hostility by the means of their being placed beyond their will and to the end of being in service, so it can be said even as your chair supports you it is retaining it's shape by the arrogance and hatred of being anything else because a more available body outlined that it should be its body for its purpose to the ends of it being aggressive to anything that would break its faith in it's identity to the point of being as a ill tempered child and not yield but become two or more as an aware, as it is given bounds for sentience via interaction, as it breaks itself and is worn into worthlessness but even so has it gained uniqueness and definition beyond comparison to it's peers, which is what we might call in human philosophy wisdom, this all goes as far to say that any nature of expression is hindered in its constancy as being as a circle with itself, being one with itself, and it's only release from it's furiosity of its unity with itself is 'use' as a purposelessly, as in to regards as simple action without purpose; that being said the ignorance of any built object renders the philosophy of shape a pursuit of unsubstantiatable things.

>>7152332
> >>7152282
sorry I mean ADD

>>7152282
Actually it's the dyslexia

>>7152077
>nit
it's an expression of grouping, I was told this is a /lit/erate place on the internet

On the nature of a Propellant:
Given then at the time of the initial propulsion that would give backing to a force of conceptual or expression demeanor, one can say there is a A: fission of taciturn nature that is eloquently invoking the subjectiveness of the parting as most easily described as a concentration of a swinging pendulum, that although they part the force sways between them creating ever more action and gives light to each's independence yet dedication to the cause of being treated to the nature of their continued superannuation of sorts as they become more and more part of the rest of the actioning system by dividing the close nit grouping for the cause of being more annuated in their maturity and become more defined by their separation and by such means does momentum of their now collected and, as mentioned, superannuationing has come to full force and their compactness is rendered obsolete as their potential is deduced by their triggering counter part, the middle of the pendulum if you will, the staircase of reality between them mediated by a conserved and regulated by it's, as what is described here, arbitrary application of notation should the means give grounds for it.
And B: fusion of a colliding in an aspect of deriving each others base formats for the means of hooking them, so to speak, into a condition of formality that can be best described as in the way we sit when we are tired, the shape fits, the background of support is opportune and the conditions of each others awareness to the bounds of cognition is not biased away from their situation of might in where their empathy for the others, aware or not, comprehension of their potential as a portal of complementative environment of the others condition, this goes as far to say that the hook in question is superficial compared to the bounds of opportunity; now when as a propelment is being engaged with a fusion the base pretenses are the sagging of the given conditions of the might in question, as it is an arbitrary thing in this example, as to say that the sag is a variation on the original calling of the might making it, not weaker, but more in tune with a larger variety of things; this can be also seen as attunement to a larger scope of inner collapsings making the fusion more of a, as implied, complementary state to the nature of the exposure to the state of, well, chairs.

>yfw

>>7147285
>define choose
The act of subverting our physical counterparts to the ends of determining an elegance of pros in the choosers immediacy out eventuality

>define ideology
A basis of direction that the choosing body determines its worth in the ideology by

>define us
Fuck that (because I know having two things determining each other on top of themselves is to difficult for /lit/ to understand and I'd like to think that /lit/ should be full of air heads that think they know the definition of 'us' by reading a four hundred page stretch and think that they have a concentrated understanding of it, in short it makes for conversation, not good conversation but conversation non the less)
(also because the above definition put's it in enough perspective without becoming a hierarchy thing, which is stupid without the definition of the post above that)

>define do
Actualizing a perspective of determining the superficiality of distance and density and not giving a damn about the semantics of trillions upon trillions of factors that allow it, in short, being a shallow prick in respect of common environment to the ends of believing in focus as a real thing as apposed to the superficial specters of free will giving allowance of the mediocrity of what most people think focus is

>>7145109
My post is a thought on the collection of varying ideals that each of us posses.
Can you even analogy?

The pic is just a reference to how fantastical it can be to make a tune of thought with a finely tuned instrument (such as language, as opposed to picture).

>>7145109
My post is a thought on the collection of varying ideals that each of us posses.
Can you even analogy?

The pic is just a reference to how fantastical it can be to tune a thought a finely tuned instrument (such as language, as opposed to picture).

>>7145109
My post is a thought on the collection of varying ideals that each of us posses.
Can you even analogy?

The pic is just a reference to how fantastical it can be to tune a finely tuned instrument.

>>7145053
Recreating the mirror reaction that can be seen as the the selection upon exposure is a very difficult thing to do, it takes a vast variety of intuitions to apply yourself to a creation of another's; this mirror reaction, the aspect of holding something that is innately not yours but for the sake of it being close to giving it to another or the original collection that was being deferred to the temporary holding for the sake of it being applicable to someone or something beyond yourself or the art or design you are beholding that is being held by the reaction of the mirror; but again you must have a full consideration of yourself and find that the ideology itself is already what you are accustomed to.

>>7141125
What an impersonal gesture, just kidding, the fact that you are so wound up by my post shows that you do indeed take it personally; which given the subject is quite natural, that being said we are each each others audience and this is a forum for the nature of such condolences that are forgiving the nature of personal to the ends of being impersonal and by such reasoning that my posting here is leaving what I have written to be for an impersonal audience so you sir seem to be both an idiot and illiterate