Offloading the Crucifixion of Opposites: Augustine as Case Study
| Consuela | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/21/26 | | Bow tie niggas always have very strong opinions | 06/22/26 | | Fair pushback | 06/22/26 | | getulio | 06/21/26 | | Fair pushback | 06/21/26 | | Brother Peter Dimond | 06/22/26 | | CapTTTainFalcon | 06/21/26 | | getulio | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | getulio | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | getulio | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | getulio | 06/21/26 | | AI has never started a F500 company | 06/21/26 | | getulio | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | Fair pushback | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/21/26 | | Fair pushback | 06/21/26 | | Consuela | 06/22/26 | | Richard Ames | 06/22/26 | | holy shit lmao 180 | 06/22/26 | | Richard Ames | 06/22/26 | | Fair pushback | 06/22/26 | | Consuela | 06/22/26 | | Fair pushback | 06/22/26 | | AI has never started a F500 company | 06/22/26 | | Bow tie niggas always have very strong opinions | 06/22/26 | | Richard Ames | 06/22/26 | | Consuela | 06/22/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/22/26 | | Consuela | 06/22/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/22/26 | | Fair pushback | 06/22/26 | | Consuela | 06/22/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/22/26 | | Consuela | 06/22/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/22/26 | | Fair pushback | 06/22/26 | | Consuela | 06/22/26 | | Fair pushback | 06/22/26 | | Consuela | 06/22/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/22/26 | | Consuela | 06/22/26 | | Fair pushback | 06/22/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/22/26 | | Bow tie niggas always have very strong opinions | 06/22/26 | | Fair pushback | 06/22/26 | | Fair pushback | 06/22/26 | | Bow tie niggas always have very strong opinions | 06/22/26 | | whyisthatthere | 06/22/26 | | Consuela | 06/22/26 | | Consuela | 06/22/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 21st, 2026 12:20 PM Author: Consuela
This essay analyzes Augustine's Confessions, arguing that his conversion and the privatio boni framework served as a psychological stabilization mechanism - a redemptive hinge-set that suppressed his shadow and externalized evil onto others. The analysis frames Augustine as the definitive case study for why most psyches require such containers, setting the stage for later figures who approached but failed to fully inhabit the non-redemptive Abraxian position.
https://livingopposites.substack.com/p/offloading-the-crucifixion-of-opposites
this one's dedicated to my boi lex <3
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5876167&forum_id=2/#49953256) |
 |
Date: June 21st, 2026 6:39 PM Author: Consuela
i am suggesting that reality is totality, a horrifying God image containing all good and all evil, that God is not all good and evil is merely a deprivation of God, that he is the unity of all irreducible opposites (light and darkness, matter and spirit, love and hatred, etc.). that is what this post is about, and many others.
one undergoes the individuation process - holding the opposites in mind until a provisional orientation emerges from within, through intuition, somatic registration, or symbolic insight, not through external authority or doctrine, in order to navigate under the horrifying God image of totality
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5876167&forum_id=2/#49953868) |
 |
Date: June 21st, 2026 6:46 PM Author: Consuela
the ultimate origin of the Self is not clear and is not defined - whether it is merely an interior orientation toward increased wholeness, whether it is part of totality, or whether it is something else entirely, Jung (correctly) deliberately left unclear
i am open about being a monist - I think everything ultimately derives from totality. that isn't provable either way. the way I assess what reality constitutes is (1) phenemonloigcally - how information rests in my body over time, and (2) via recursive predictions
perhaps those methods don't work for you and you have your own approach, although I haven't encountered a more effective method for navigating the current epistemic collapse / total collapse of institutional authority
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5876167&forum_id=2/#49953885) |
 |
Date: June 21st, 2026 7:22 PM Author: Consuela
fair pushback, but apply the same standard to your own position and see if it survives it. You said earlier the crucifixion symbol works because it actually happened to some dude irl - that's not a truth proof either, you weren't there, nobody alive was. The earliest written source is Paul, who never met Christ and was writing 20-30 years after the fact; the Gospels come later still, compiled from oral tradition, written by authors with explicit theological agendas, in a period when miracle claims about religious founders were a common genre convention rather than a unique evidentiary signal. You're accepting that event as historical bedrock on testimony you can't independently verify, filtered through exactly the kind of community-transmitted narrative process you'd reject as evidence in any other context. That's not science either, it's also liberal arts - text criticism, historiography, testimony evaluation dressed in the grammar of historical fact rather than the grammar of preference, but no more provable from outside the hinge-set than what I'm doing.
The actual distinction you're reaching for isn't science vs. preference, it's first-order claim vs. method of recognition. P1 through P9 of my link are first-order ontological claims - they're either true of reality or they aren't, independent of who's looking. What I added above isn't a retreat from that into "just my preference", it's an account of the mechanism by which any hinge proposition, true or false, becomes recognizable to a given mind, through argument landing on a psyche whose own lived data already corroborates it.
That's not unique to my framework, it's true of yours. You didn't arrive at Christ-as-King through a logical proof either - you arrived at it because something about the claim resonated with prior experience, community, temperament, whatever the actual causal chain was for you, and then the argument did secondary work confirming a conclusion the hinge-set had already made available. Every foundational metaphysical commitment anyone holds works this way. Hinges aren't argued into place, they're the bedrock that makes argument possible in the first place, and they shift through accumulated friction with experience, not through being defeated in a thread.
So no, this isn't a normative statement about a preferred future state, it's a claim about the actual structure of reality, paired with an honest account of why that claim won't be persuasive through pure argument to someone whose own data hasn't produced the friction that makes it recognizable. If you want to call that "liberal arts," fine, but then your own position is exactly the same genre, and the historicity claim you opened with doesn't get to exit the genre just because it's older and has more institutional backing behind it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5876167&forum_id=2/#49953966) |
Date: June 21st, 2026 6:54 PM Author: CapTTTainFalcon
184 of 240 people found the following review helpful
Between the Racist World and Ta Coates
By Alfonso Dupont on July 24, 2015
Format: Kindle Edition
Ta Coates is one of the great thinkers of the 21st century. Don't agree? Then you're on the wrong side of history.
Ta has written a book for the ages, chronicling such fascinating episodes as dating, doing poorly in academics because of racism, reading comic books, the racism of attractive white women he has asked out, what it was like to be in a down low relationship with Matt Yglesias for five months, cartoons, and the phenomenon known as "muhdik". Between the World and Me (a brilliant title that counterbalances the entire world with Ta Coates' genius) ranks with the Confessions of St. Augustine, if St. Augustine had done poorly in school and mostly just watched television and read comic books during his formative years. In fact St. Augustine is a rather trivial figure in Western history that you don't need to have heard of, he never even influenced society through highly praised magazine columns, and his books are very boring compared to reading about the adventures of men in colorful skin tight costumes.
During a long and rambling eighth chapter, Ta discusses his brave decision to disable comments on his blog. He shows how talking back to a highly paid media personality is an example of "punching down", employing a series of stories which usually involve noting that people who have promoted him are actually racist and did so only because they expected him to fail. There's also a moving account of how he literally wept on discovering how to turn on Microsoft Word's spelling and grammar checker.
As A.O.Scott has observed, Between Ta World and Me is "essential, like water or air", a truism you'd have to be a real hate-in-your-soul racist to deny. As a matter of fact, people who are too racist to read and enjoy this brilliantly spelled and grammar-checked volume are expected to die very soon because this book is literally essential, like water or air. An edition in which all of the book's passages are placed as dialogue between comic book heroes Black Lightning and Luke Cage is said to be in the works.
Like Ta's 14-year-old son, you may not be interested in reading through the many spelling and grammar corrected pages of this book, but even just having it on your bookshelf is important until the forthcoming graphic novel version arrives. How will they know you're not a racist otherwise? I personally enjoy reading it while enjoying water and air, two things that like this book are essential. Thus I give it the first star rating of excellence.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5876167&forum_id=2/#49953907) |
 |
Date: June 21st, 2026 11:33 PM Author: Consuela
if a person's god image syncs with their perception of reality and it works for them, then there is no reason to change it. why change what works?
if the god image and one's perception of reality do not sync, though, this puts increasing psychosomatic pressure on the god image until either it updates or one suffers breakdown
most people, perhaps everyone, will not update their god image - whether or not it makes them feel like a "bad person" - unless the psychosomatic pressure exceeds the cost and uncertainty of change. it is a threshold question
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5876167&forum_id=2/#49954678) |
|
|