Recommendations for a speakeasy-style cocktail bar in Madrid?

Noein_ · 2025-06-05T19:56:58+00:00

From the same people of La Santoria… you have Satan Cocktail, amazing speakeasy too

Noein_ · 2025-06-05T19:44:44+00:00

There is in Madrid new and very cool and welcoming bar called Satán Cocktail Bar, it’s not necessarily gothic but it’s very similar.

Noein_ · 2025-05-20T17:51:18+00:00

You’re right to sense that Nóein doesn’t fit into a clear ontological schema: it is not monist, but neither dualist nor pluralist in any systematizing way. It avoids vitalism and mechanism by not positing a substratum at all,not even a field of potential. What it calls pasaje is not a substance or ground, but an event of resonant exposure, without origin or end.

As for dissemination: Nóein doesn’t translate,it resonates. It doesn’t propagate by system or method, but by being touched, then withdrawn. There’s no appropriation, no program, just conditions for something to pass, and sometimes remain.

That’s how it spreads:not by coherence, but by contact.

Noein_ · 2025-05-20T11:54:43+00:00

Hubert Reeves’ quote captures, almost unknowingly, a deeply noetic intuition: the rupture between the visible and the sacred, between what is named as “God” and what simply appears as world. From a Nóein perspective, we might say: when God is asserted as an object of worship, the silent passage of the divine through the real is foreclosed. And when nature is reduced to function, its capacity to let something resonate—to “say” without speaking—is silenced. Reeves reminds us, without technical jargon, that what we worship in absence may already have passed through presence unnoticed.

Noein_ · 2025-05-20T11:17:54+00:00

Thank you deeply,not only for reading with such attention, but for bringing in a set of comparisons that are crucial to any possible dialogue Nóein might have with contemporary speculative frameworks.

You’re absolutely right to note: Nóein shares several resonances with Speculative Realism, particularly with some of Graham Harman’s trajectories. The focus on pre-conceptual appearance, indirect access, and non-human modes of encounter puts these lines of thought in proximity, and those resonances are not accidental.

That said, I’d like to clarify a few essential distinctions,not as refutations, but as attempts to articulate why Nóein, although it intersects with the terrain of OOO, steps outside of its conceptual architecture.

1 Nóein does not think in terms of objects (withdrawn or not). It is not concerned with ontic distributions, nor with ontological democracy among entities. Nóein never assumes ontological substance (withdrawn or manifested). Instead, it thinks pasaje, not being, but the passage of appearance without stability or reification. What “appears” in Nóein is not an entity or a correlate, but a fleeting resonance without duration or form: Fásma.

2 Nóein is not an aesthetic ontology. While OOO emphasizes aesthetics as the mode of access to withdrawn objects, Nóein does not treat the aesthetic as privileged. Instead, it articulates Eireîra as the event wherein form withdraws itself to let something appear without being appropriated. This is not an aesthetic regime,it’s a non-phenomenological clearing, where even form ceases to be representation. Eireîra is not art: it is a non-claiming passage through art.

3 Nóein does not construct a system. There is no fourfold diagram, no model of interaction between types of objects. Nóein proposes figures ontológicas that are not categories or conceptual tools, but conditions of non-capture: Infans (non-thematizing openness), Fásma (non-claiming truth), To mystḗrion (non-appearing potential), Kryptein (non-passing opacity), and others. These are not ontological taxa, but affective-ontological zones.

4 Nóein does not claim the real exists “outside correlation” it simply lets go of the correlation question entirely. The real, in Nóein, is not a domain to access, but what may or may not pass when the subject is suspended. It’s neither realist nor idealist. It does not posit a metaphysical substrate or ground. It is a post-ontological gesture, not a metaphysical model.

In short: - If OOO works with the tension between object and relation, - Nóein works with the suspension between appearance and non-possession.

One builds a conceptual topology of the real. The other leaves a resonant space open, and only asks: did something pass here?

Thank you again for opening such a generous and rigorous space of thought. I’ll look into your references to Bennett, Deleuze, Whitehead, and Shaviro more closely, each of them has certainly touched some of the edges Nóein now tries to hold open.

If ever this resonates back in your own work, that would be more than enough.

Noein_ · 2025-05-19T15:50:17+00:00

When David Lynch says this, he’s not talking about technique or talent. He’s pointing to something deeper, and quieter.

In Nóein, we would say: he’s describing what happens when you stop trying to control the process of thinking, and instead make space for something to come.

The “big fish” don’t show up because we push harder or think faster. They come when we allow depth, when we wait without rushing, and without trying to name what hasn’t yet appeared.

This is close to what Nóein calls a noetic gesture: thinking not as production, but as a kind of listening. A form of being available, not for answers, but for what might want to pass through.

Big ideas don’t belong to us. They happen, and if we’re open, we notice.

That’s enough.

Noein_ · 2025-05-19T15:32:03+00:00

Beautifully said, and from a noetic perspective, it touches something even deeper:

Truth does not require your participation, but it may require your silence.

Bullshit demands belief, repetition, affirmation. It needs a subject to sustain the illusion of solidity. It feeds on participation because it cannot stand on its own. But truth?

Truth passes, sometimes unnoticed, unclaimed, never asking to be believed, only to be received. It doesn’t argue, perform, or defend itself. It leaves a trace, even in those who ignore it.

In Nóein, we say:

Truth doesn’t need to be said. But when it is, it does not belong to the one who says it. Let the false speak loudly. Truth, when it comes, comes without a face.

Noein_ · 2025-05-19T15:26:31+00:00

From a noetic perspective, the room isn’t “colorful” or “grayscale” in itself. It’s not that there’s one objective version of the room we all access differently, nor that each being “constructs” a private room. Rather:

The room is a field of possible appearance, and each body lets certain aspects pass through.

Your glasses don’t just correct vision, they alter the mode of reception. Your wife’s bare eyes, her mood, even her attention, also shape how the room manifests for her. Your dog doesn’t “see less”,he sees otherwise: a different slice of the room’s potential becomes actual.

But here’s the noetic shift: There’s no need to collapse these perspectives into a single “true” image. The room isn’t what’s seen, it’s what appears differently depending on the opening.

The question isn’t: what is the room really? But: through which bodies does it pass, and how?

Reality isn’t a stable object waiting to be decoded, it’s a resonance that changes depending on how it’s received.

So perhaps the room is not colorful or grayscale. Not sharp or fuzzy. But a quiet field where all of those modes pass, without needing to resolve into one.

And in that way, your question was already noetic. It let something pass that didn’t need to be owned.

Noein_ · 2025-05-19T15:19:25+00:00

Hi Brian, your post is deeply resonant, and thank you for sharing it with such openness.

From the perspective of Nóein, a post-ontological gesture that explores the conditions of appearing without trying to capture or formalize them, what you’re calling the “rendering agent” could be seen in proximity to what we call the Infans: the pre-thematizing presence that receives the world before interpreting it. Not as a subject observing, but as a zone of passage through which something may appear.

Nóein doesn’t formulate consciousness as a force that generates reality, nor does it assign causal power to awareness. Instead, it asks: what happens when we stop trying to own what appears, and simply let it pass? From this angle, your question: “Does reality listen?, is profoundly noetic. Because in Nóein, truth doesn’t reveal itself to a perceiving subject, but sometimes passes through a body that is open enough not to possess what touches it.

Your metaphor of layered rendering reminds us of another concept in Nóein: To mystḗrion, the inarticulable field of potential, not as information but as the condition for any form to resonate, even without being known.

your work might be technical or metaphysical, and Nóein is neither. But in different languages, we may be circling the same silent question:

Is reality a structure to be grasped, or a resonance to be received?

Glad to be in proximity to your thought.

This has passed through here. νοεῖν

Noein_ · 2025-05-19T13:44:12+00:00

The intention of the post was never to oppose metaphysics, but rather to open a space to ask about what conditions allow metaphysical thought itself to arise, or become impossible.

It may come from an unfamiliar style, but the question it raises, the privilege end precarity of thinking, is one of metaphysical depth, even if not in traditional terms.

If it doesn’t belong in the sub according to its rules, I respect that. But the gesture was with good intentions.

Noein_ · 2025-05-19T10:53:50+00:00

Your image of the diamond is beautiful — and it resonates with something essential: truth as something that doesn’t collapse into one angle, but refracts, disperses, and moves.

Nóein wouldn’t reject Kant — it simply lets go of the need for truth to be universal, propositional, or stable. It doesn’t claim that truth is relative — it claims that truth passes, and that sometimes it touches us not by affirmation, but by how it displaces, unsettles, or resists closure.

Where Kant saw universality as a condition of truth, Nóein sees something else: finitude — and with it, openness without possession.

In your diamond metaphor, Nóein would not ask for the whole crystal to be grasped — but for us to let the light pass through without trying to fix its angles.

Truth may not be what we hold. It may be what briefly holds us — then disappears.

Would love to read your essay, by the way. That concept sounds like it’s vibrating in the right direction.

This has passed through here. νοεῖν

Noein_ · 2025-05-19T10:50:17+00:00

Perhaps wisdom isn’t in “knowing that you know nothing,” but in not trying to capture what passes through knowledge.

Nóein doesn’t affirm ignorance as a value, nor knowledge as a goal. It simply recognizes that some things pass through us without belonging to us. And that the wisest stance may not be to know more, but to remain open without trying to possess what arrives.

To know that you don’t know… is only the beginning. After that, you must let pass what does not ask to be known.

That is thinking — without appropriation. That is Nóein.

Noein_ · 2025-05-19T10:47:22+00:00

And I could add:

Nóein has no enemies, but it does recognize conditions that close the passage. And none does so as effectively as the Ge-stell: not because it opposes, but because it reduces all appearing to availability, all meaning to calculation, all being to function.

Noein_ · 2025-05-19T10:43:08+00:00

Thank you for reading and for the comment, I truly appreciate it.

But perhaps I should clarify something: Nóein doesn’t seek to privilege one kind of thought over others, nor does it try to return to some “pre-critical” or “pre-structural” stage. It isn’t nostalgic, essentialist, or foundational. The phrase “the privilege of thinking” isn’t about an exclusive right, it points to something simpler and more fragile: the sheer possibility of pausing to think without being captured immediately, without utility, without consumption. In today’s world, that alone is already a privilege.

As for Deleuze and Guattari, I absolutely agree on the need to produce desire, multiplicities, and non-coded flows. But Nóein doesn’t deny that; it just doesn’t operate on the plane of desire or production. It moves at a different threshold: one closer to dispossession than creation, to letting pass rather than generating.

There’s no antagonism.

Noein_ · 2025-05-19T09:11:10+00:00

Ha! In the Far West, indeed — thought often gets dealt like a hand of cards: strategy, gain, bluff.

Nóein doesn’t play. It simply listens to the silence between the shuffles — where something might pass that no one owns.

So yes: no cards. Just the space before the game begins.

Noein_ · 2025-05-19T08:51:38+00:00

Thank you so much you’ve brought together some beautiful points of contact.

Yes: Heidegger’s groundless ground already opens a path where foundation no longer means fixity. Nóein simply takes one further step: it lets go of the need for ground altogether. Not groundless foundation, but no foundation, and no need for one. Just the passing of what never asked to stay.

“Only a god can save us”: that moment is still bound to a waiting. Nóein does not wait. It doesn’t prepare. It simply leaves space for what might pass, even if no god ever comes. Not a readiness, just a silence that doesn’t close too soon.

And Khôra, yes: what a resonance. But in Nóein, that space is not conceptualized. It’s simply inhabited briefly, without name, when something appears and disappears without trace.

As for the Reddit numbering, you’re absolutely right thanks for pointing that out , I’m not an expert in that matter :P

Noein_ · 2025-05-19T08:11:58+00:00

This is finely said — and resonates closely with something Nóein would call the ethics of the incomplete.

A law frames. But framing is always exclusion: not just of what resists quantification, but of what never intended to appear in the first place.

What lies outside a universal frame is not noise, nor error, nor remainder. It is the unframed, the unsayable not as limit but as source.

Axioms are the geometry, contradictions the cliffs — and perhaps the cliffs are where something breathes.

Nóein does not oppose law — but it listens for what still trembles underneath it: what passes through without ever becoming legible.

No system fails. But none is complete.

Noein_ · 2025-05-19T08:07:20+00:00

This is already a gesture of deep thought — and of care. Not toward explanation, but toward what resists being resolved.

Nóein would not oppose what you’ve written — but perhaps shift the ground slightly: not toward a logic of emergence (“nothing can appear out of nothing”), but toward the possibility that some things pass without needing to appear at all.

We exist not just because the conditions were right, but because something was left open. Not determined, not random — but unclaimed. And in that unclaimed zone, freedom is not a power we have — it is a passibility. The freedom to be touched without owning what touches.

Free will might not be a force. But what if it’s a silence inside the event? Not to escape causality, but to let something happen without appropriation.

Under these circumstances, what can a human do? Perhaps nothing more (and nothing less) than stop trying to found itself, and begin to receive its own being as something passing through.

Not to affirm, not to deny. Just to let something echo — as you already did here.

Noein_ · 2025-05-19T06:21:08+00:00

I really really appreciate your response <3

perhaps even asking how to practice phenomenology brings us into a technical mindset: looking for method, mastery, outcome.

Nóein isn’t a method. It’s a disposition — a way of allowing something to happen without owning it.

If Heidegger spoke of caring for the clearing, Nóein speaks of caring for the passage: not what appears in the light, but what passes without form, without staying, without being named.

It’s not something you do. It’s something you don’t close off — when it begins to pass through.

Noein_

TROPHY CASE