RE: https://kolektiva.social/@Hex/116284199711940740

Which is here...

@Hex finally got around to reading this :)

the point you make feels very similar to the idea of the Big Other, in psychoanalysis. there, this Big Other is something we can inherit (and we can have more than one), but we can also recognize it doesn't exist as such and express our own will by choosing one (or more) for ourselves

the essence, as i understand it, is that we always have a Big Other, even when we think ourselves free of it. we have a "gaze" under which we perform (1/4)

@Hex about the aesthetic of your writing, it seems to me like it would benefit from two things:

1. following a structure that allows readers to ultimately follow you from hypothesis to conclusion. doesn't mean this has to sound like a maths proof. i really like the taste of chaos in your writing. however, it's very difficult, right now, to distinguish which things are "your hypothesis" and where the conclusion starts / ends

2. a stronger, more clearly worded conclusion. (2/4)

@Hex right now, it feels like the conclusion is a re-stating of the opening paragraph ("you give thought-time to an external entity, a god, and you are free to fashion your god. when you chose your god you prefigurate what the god wants. when you act in line with the desire of your god, you enact a religion")

there are some rhetorical questions added at the end that seem to branch out from this, but it's not clear where they want to go ("what if our god was ego dissolution?") (3/4)