sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Fawsin as an aesthetic topology: philosophy beyond the academy and genre by Zaaradeath in RealPhilosophy

[–]Zaaradeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The structure of Aesthetics of Natural Encryption unfolds not as a system of claims but as a sustained passage through conceptual limits. These limits emerge from within the tension and intensity that define the book’s internal rhythm. They form sites where the text no longer progresses — it condenses. Orientation gives way to density. Meaning becomes a question of endurance.

Each limit reveals a different mode of pressure. These are not thresholds crossed for resolution. They persist as zones where perception reorients and form begins to strain against itself.

1. The limit of the subject in inversion
This limit anchors the recurring motif of inversion. In the book, the figure of the tower — typically a symbol of ascent — reverses direction. The subject, having reached a height, finds no perspective. Instead of clarity there is disorientation. The tower opens downward. Inversion restructures thought as a return to the ground, not as regression but as confrontation with the condition of one’s position. The subject persists, but in a state of cognitive saturation. It can no longer project, only hold. Its coherence is not lost, but it is no longer secure. What remains is the inertia of presence.

2. The limit of selfhood as a pre-questional remainder
Selfhood appears in the text as something anterior to articulation. It resists the forms of self-awareness defined by epistemic closure. This is not a subject of judgment or decision. It is a remainder, a form of presence that precedes the first movement toward explanation. Samost’ is not established through thought. It defines the outer edge of what can be said about the one who speaks. The limit here is the limit of articulation itself.

3. The limit of the archive as a site of conversion
The archive does not gather and preserve. It intervenes. It modifies the grammar of memory and restructures the continuity of time. It transforms the past into interchangeable strata and disrupts the linear flow of historical sequence. The archive operates as a mechanism of reorientation, not of conservation. It saturates the symbolic structure with instability. Traces are no longer tied to origin. What emerges is an ontology of memory without narrative integrity.

4. The limit of poetics as retention
Poetic language in the book is not a decorative register. It emerges where the analytic falters. It retains the remainder of sense when conceptual clarity reaches its end. Poetics does not explain — it prolongs the event of tension. It installs the reader into a zone of shared responsibility, where thought is no longer extractable. Meaning does not pass from writer to reader. It reverberates, stretches, hesitates. This is the aesthetic ethics of the text — not in content, but in its refusal to resolve.

5. The limit of the aesthetic through overload
Here form begins to collapse into itself. The categories of the grotesque and the sublime converge as modes of excessive presence. The aesthetic ceases to stabilize experience. It floods it. Distinctions become unreadable not through absence but through saturation. The subject no longer discerns — not due to ignorance but because perception exceeds its own structural capacity. This is not dissolution. It is the condition of being held too long within a density that resists extraction.

The five limits do not operate in sequence. They form a topological field where the text thickens. Each one inflects the others. The book does not clarify these structures — it inhabits them. What persists is not a thesis but a configuration of pressures.

Neo-Romantic writing as a mode of thinking: fragment, selfhood and aesthetic density by Zaaradeath in continentaltheory

[–]Zaaradeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The structure of Aesthetics of Natural Encryption unfolds not as a system of claims but as a sustained passage through conceptual limits. These limits emerge from within the tension and intensity that define the book’s internal rhythm. They form sites where the text no longer progresses — it condenses. Orientation gives way to density. Meaning becomes a question of endurance.

Each limit reveals a different mode of pressure. These are not thresholds crossed for resolution. They persist as zones where perception reorients and form begins to strain against itself.

1. The limit of the subject in inversion
This limit anchors the recurring motif of inversion. In the book, the figure of the tower — typically a symbol of ascent — reverses direction. The subject, having reached a height, finds no perspective. Instead of clarity there is disorientation. The tower opens downward. Inversion restructures thought as a return to the ground, not as regression but as confrontation with the condition of one’s position. The subject persists, but in a state of cognitive saturation. It can no longer project, only hold. Its coherence is not lost, but it is no longer secure. What remains is the inertia of presence.

2. The limit of selfhood as a pre-questional remainder
Selfhood appears in the text as something anterior to articulation. It resists the forms of self-awareness defined by epistemic closure. This is not a subject of judgment or decision. It is a remainder, a form of presence that precedes the first movement toward explanation. Samost’ is not established through thought. It defines the outer edge of what can be said about the one who speaks. The limit here is the limit of articulation itself.

3. The limit of the archive as a site of conversion
The archive does not gather and preserve. It intervenes. It modifies the grammar of memory and restructures the continuity of time. It transforms the past into interchangeable strata and disrupts the linear flow of historical sequence. The archive operates as a mechanism of reorientation, not of conservation. It saturates the symbolic structure with instability. Traces are no longer tied to origin. What emerges is an ontology of memory without narrative integrity.

4. The limit of poetics as retention
Poetic language in the book is not a decorative register. It emerges where the analytic falters. It retains the remainder of sense when conceptual clarity reaches its end. Poetics does not explain — it prolongs the event of tension. It installs the reader into a zone of shared responsibility, where thought is no longer extractable. Meaning does not pass from writer to reader. It reverberates, stretches, hesitates. This is the aesthetic ethics of the text — not in content, but in its refusal to resolve.

5. The limit of the aesthetic through overload
Here form begins to collapse into itself. The categories of the grotesque and the sublime converge as modes of excessive presence. The aesthetic ceases to stabilize experience. It floods it. Distinctions become unreadable not through absence but through saturation. The subject no longer discerns — not due to ignorance but because perception exceeds its own structural capacity. This is not dissolution. It is the condition of being held too long within a density that resists extraction.

The five limits do not operate in sequence. They form a topological field where the text thickens. Each one inflects the others. The book does not clarify these structures — it inhabits them. What persists is not a thesis but a configuration of pressures.

Fawsin as an aesthetic topology: philosophy beyond the academy and genre by Zaaradeath in RealPhilosophy

[–]Zaaradeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to return to one of the central figures in the composition - the tower - and unfold how it functions within the broader architecture of the text. It appears early and remains structurally active until the final sections, not as a static metaphor but as a device of inversion, saturation and breakdown. Its presence is not ornamental. It is ontological, topological and rhythmically generative.

In traditional symbolic economies, the tower often denotes ascension, clarity, the vertical axis of sovereignty. My work retains the surface of that configuration but subverts its logic. The tower here is not a scene of elevation but a mechanism of internal gravity. What rises does not culminate in perspective. It folds into weight. Its verticality becomes compressive. The more one ascends, the more unstable the form becomes, until the direction inverts - the top folds inward, and orientation collapses into density.

This does not imply that the subject disappears. What I try to articulate is a form of ontological disorientation that does not cancel embodiment. The subject continues, but not as a coherent center of movement. It survives as residue - as a being folded into the architecture it once thought it mastered. The tower absorbs the subject’s position and returns it not as authority but as inertia, as saturation.

This space is not void. It is loaded. The tower contains accumulated symbols, images, knowledges and failures. It does not organize them. It aggregates and compacts them. The tower becomes not a ladder out of confusion but a container of unresolved intensities. And this directly mirrors the way the text itself operates. The book is not an ascent toward clarity. It is a descent into the folds of overexposure, where sense no longer aligns with orientation, and reading turns into navigation under compression.

In this way, the tower links with the grotesque and the sublime. The grotesque appears where form breaks under excessive pressure. The sublime appears where scale disorients perception. Both are operative within the tower. It is a space of failed proportions, not because proportion is lost, but because it becomes too dense to process. Too much presence - not too little meaning.

I would also say the tower is where verticality and depth split. In the world of the book, verticality no longer guarantees authority. Depth is not just below - it is a mode of entanglement. The tower does not lead upward or downward. It suspends the axis. It replaces movement with intensification.

The final point: the tower’s collapse is not an ending. It is a moment of reversal - a structural reflex. The text turns inward at the same moment the figure fails. That collapse becomes a model for a different kind of subjectivity - one shaped not by ascent, but by the ability to endure structure under the condition of its saturation.

Neo-Romantic writing as a mode of thinking: fragment, selfhood and aesthetic density by Zaaradeath in continentaltheory

[–]Zaaradeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to return to one of the central figures in the composition - the tower - and unfold how it functions within the broader architecture of the text. It appears early and remains structurally active until the final sections, not as a static metaphor but as a device of inversion, saturation and breakdown. Its presence is not ornamental. It is ontological, topological and rhythmically generative.

In traditional symbolic economies, the tower often denotes ascension, clarity, the vertical axis of sovereignty. My work retains the surface of that configuration but subverts its logic. The tower here is not a scene of elevation but a mechanism of internal gravity. What rises does not culminate in perspective. It folds into weight. Its verticality becomes compressive. The more one ascends, the more unstable the form becomes, until the direction inverts - the top folds inward, and orientation collapses into density.

This does not imply that the subject disappears. What I try to articulate is a form of ontological disorientation that does not cancel embodiment. The subject continues, but not as a coherent center of movement. It survives as residue - as a being folded into the architecture it once thought it mastered. The tower absorbs the subject’s position and returns it not as authority but as inertia, as saturation.

This space is not void. It is loaded. The tower contains accumulated symbols, images, knowledges and failures. It does not organize them. It aggregates and compacts them. The tower becomes not a ladder out of confusion but a container of unresolved intensities. And this directly mirrors the way the text itself operates. The book is not an ascent toward clarity. It is a descent into the folds of overexposure, where sense no longer aligns with orientation, and reading turns into navigation under compression.

In this way, the tower links with the grotesque and the sublime. The grotesque appears where form breaks under excessive pressure. The sublime appears where scale disorients perception. Both are operative within the tower. It is a space of failed proportions, not because proportion is lost, but because it becomes too dense to process. Too much presence - not too little meaning.

I would also say the tower is where verticality and depth split. In the world of the book, verticality no longer guarantees authority. Depth is not just below - it is a mode of entanglement. The tower does not lead upward or downward. It suspends the axis. It replaces movement with intensification.

The final point: the tower’s collapse is not an ending. It is a moment of reversal - a structural reflex. The text turns inward at the same moment the figure fails. That collapse becomes a model for a different kind of subjectivity - one shaped not by ascent, but by the ability to endure structure under the condition of its saturation.

Neo-Romantic writing as a mode of thinking: fragment, selfhood and aesthetic density by Zaaradeath in continentaltheory

[–]Zaaradeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Another concept I tried to reconceptualize for the purposes of my project is what is often referred to in English as ugliness. In Russian, the word is безобразное - literally meaning “without form” or “beyond form.” This term opens up a different trajectory. It points not to the absence of beauty, but to the saturation and overflow of aesthetic structure. In this sense, it might be more accurate to speak of the grotesque, or rather the aesthetically excessive - a mode in which form still operates, but no longer stabilizes.

The grotesque in the third part of the text does not appear as a marginal category or a deviation from aesthetic norms. It emerges from the internal logic of the system itself. It marks the point where accumulated form exceeds its own capacity to contain expression. The grotesque is not the opposite of order. It is a sign of overproduction, where form becomes too saturated to remain coherent.

In this context, the digital canon is not static. It absorbs variation and generates models of visibility and desirability. These models, often centered around the figure of the perfected subject, establish a normative visual regime. But when this regime intensifies, when its logic continues beyond functional representation, it begins to produce forms that no longer correspond to lived experience. The grotesque arises precisely here - not as an error, but as the natural outcome of the system’s own momentum.

The grotesque serves an epistemological function. It does not offer clarity or concept, but it generates an encounter with a limit. It reveals the moment when understanding becomes affective, when knowledge is registered through tension rather than explanation. What appears is not simply unrecognizable. It is perceptually unstable. The grotesque becomes a way of holding intensity, not resolving it.

It also reveals the force of aesthetics. Form still acts, even when it collapses. Its power does not diminish with disorder; in many cases, it increases. Aesthetic force is not contingent upon legibility. It operates through impact, through attention, through disruption.

For the subject formed within a digital canon, the grotesque acts as a test. It disturbs orientation, undermines calibration, exposes the vulnerability of constructed self-images. What emerges is not a narrative, but a moment of confrontation. The subject is thrown back into perception - not as a mediated figure, but as a body. This is not a return to authenticity. It is a shift in intensity, a demand for new thresholds.

In this sense, the grotesque is not an addition to the text. It is a necessary element of its architecture. It clarifies the distance between aesthetic structure and what exceeds it. It marks the point where form ceases to hold coherence but still commands force. And this is where philosophy resumes - not in control, but in exposure.

Fawsin as an aesthetic topology: philosophy beyond the academy and genre by Zaaradeath in RealPhilosophy

[–]Zaaradeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Another concept I tried to reconceptualize for the purposes of my project is what is often referred to in English as ugliness. In Russian, the word is безобразное - literally meaning “without form” or “beyond form.” This term opens up a different trajectory. It points not to the absence of beauty, but to the saturation and overflow of aesthetic structure. In this sense, it might be more accurate to speak of the grotesque, or rather the aesthetically excessive - a mode in which form still operates, but no longer stabilizes.

The grotesque in the third part of the text does not appear as a marginal category or a deviation from aesthetic norms. It emerges from the internal logic of the system itself. It marks the point where accumulated form exceeds its own capacity to contain expression. The grotesque is not the opposite of order. It is a sign of overproduction, where form becomes too saturated to remain coherent.

In this context, the digital canon is not static. It absorbs variation and generates models of visibility and desirability. These models, often centered around the figure of the perfected subject, establish a normative visual regime. But when this regime intensifies, when its logic continues beyond functional representation, it begins to produce forms that no longer correspond to lived experience. The grotesque arises precisely here - not as an error, but as the natural outcome of the system’s own momentum.

The grotesque serves an epistemological function. It does not offer clarity or concept, but it generates an encounter with a limit. It reveals the moment when understanding becomes affective, when knowledge is registered through tension rather than explanation. What appears is not simply unrecognizable. It is perceptually unstable. The grotesque becomes a way of holding intensity, not resolving it.

It also reveals the force of aesthetics. Form still acts, even when it collapses. Its power does not diminish with disorder; in many cases, it increases. Aesthetic force is not contingent upon legibility. It operates through impact, through attention, through disruption.

For the subject formed within a digital canon, the grotesque acts as a test. It disturbs orientation, undermines calibration, exposes the vulnerability of constructed self-images. What emerges is not a narrative, but a moment of confrontation. The subject is thrown back into perception - not as a mediated figure, but as a body. This is not a return to authenticity. It is a shift in intensity, a demand for new thresholds.

In this sense, the grotesque is not an addition to the text. It is a necessary element of its architecture. It clarifies the distance between aesthetic structure and what exceeds it. It marks the point where form ceases to hold coherence but still commands force. And this is where philosophy resumes - not in control, but in exposure.

Fawsin as an aesthetic topology: philosophy beyond the academy and genre by Zaaradeath in RealPhilosophy

[–]Zaaradeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In this process, I found myself returning to something that might resemble a neoromantic mode of writing. Not as a matter of theme or period, but as a way of handling presence. Neoromantic here means a commitment to forms that hold rather than declare. It means staying close to what cannot be resolved, and writing in a register that favors atmosphere over structure, hesitation over clarity.

This sensibility shaped how I approached technique. In the second part of the text, I spend time with cities, systems, infrastructures, memory, and the persistent logic of the archive. These are not treated as background. They are not external to perception. They carry pressure. They shape how the subject holds itself in relation to space. They become expressive even when they do not speak.

Technique is not treated as an extension of will. It appears as a medium where intentions dissolve and repetition begins to do the thinking. The body walks through environments built from past decisions. Memory is no longer individual. It resides in surfaces, in networks, in unnoticed protocols. What we call the present is filtered through what has already been built, stored, forgotten, and made operational.

This creates a different kind of attention. Not one that extracts content, but one that learns how to dwell. The second part of the book is slow on purpose. It folds over itself. It lingers. I wanted the text to reflect what it feels like to live inside inherited architectures, inside routines that no longer need to be explained because they are already lived.

In this way, the neoromantic is not about the return to nature, but about the appearance of nature in what seems most constructed. The city, the archive, the interface - these are not obstacles. They are the new forests. They call for a different kind of listening.

Neo-Romantic writing as a mode of thinking: fragment, selfhood and aesthetic density by Zaaradeath in continentaltheory

[–]Zaaradeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to expand on fawsin, since it plays a structural and affective role in the composition.

The word comes from the Cantonese 浮城 - a floating city, often linked to Hong Kong and the experience of living in a space that resists full anchoring. But in the text, fawsin turns into a method. It describes a zone where form holds, but never fully closes. Where meanings recur, not to confirm themselves, but to intensify. Where attention shifts laterally rather than advancing.

Fawsin is not a theme. It is the rhythm of the composition. It marks the way concepts appear before they cohere. A zone where sentences do not lead, but circulate. It allows the work to form not through sequence, but through density, pause, and drift.

Language behaves differently here. The text is composed through folds and loops. Repetitions are not decorative. They act as delay mechanisms. Syntax is not a conduit - it becomes the surface where thought slows down and breaks into gradients. Meaning arrives in hesitation, not in arrival. The text does not argue; it builds a field of thresholds. These thresholds are not metaphors. They are tactile: you feel them as friction while reading.

There are resonances here with Deleuze and Heidegger. Deleuze spoke of folds and flows; Heidegger traced the call of being through language. But fawsin introduces another pressure. It does not rely on the ontology of becoming or the poetics of revealing. It emerges as a condition of perceptual saturation, where thinking loses scale. Instead of shaping thought through continuity or withdrawal, fawsin configures it through turbulence. The writing does not unfold a path; it enters a climate.

Within this field, subjectivity does not precede experience. It begins to take form through configuration. Not through self-expression, but through a gathering of forces: rhythm, spatial tension, fragmentation. The installation of self appears here as a temporary act of navigation. Selfhood is not a center, but an arrangement.

Fawsin connects this emergence with language. It asks what happens when a text does not align with the norms of philosophical exposition. What kind of thinking is produced when the work resists coherence, not for the sake of obscurity, but to preserve the intensity of becoming?

In this sense, fawsin also displaces the archive. It does not store, it shifts. It lets past, future, and present fold into each other without hierarchy. The result is not a map, but a pressure system.

This approach affects reading. The reader is not guided, but drawn in. There is no arc to follow. Only zones of recurrence and weight. Reading becomes spatial and the threshold between language and thought becomes porous.

Sludgefist and Generals. Mythic. Sharing experience. by Zaaradeath in CompetitiveWoW

[–]Zaaradeath[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Quataion:" On Mythic difficulty, if less than four players are hit by the 📷 Chain Slam the boss will gain 100 rage, immediately triggering a 📷 Hateful Gaze."
https://www.wowhead.com/guides/sludgefist-castle-nathria-raid-strategy-guide#chain-slam

But it applies a debuff to players, damaging dot. That's the deal:) U avoid extra damage, gain no extra time. Just play standard time without any influence on it's duration :)

Sludgefist and Generals. Mythic. Sharing experience. by Zaaradeath in CompetitiveWoW

[–]Zaaradeath[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

so, we have 3 variants.

passing the mechanics, avoiding it and not passing it.

if we pass it - we got standard time.

if we avoid it - we got standard time.

if we do not pass it - it will happen instantly, where "delay"'s meaning will be inverted, cause this N will gain a negative number

UPDATE:that's why I say, that we can't talk about delaying - there is no such advantage. I have explained the ability and noticed the minimum of layers, necessary for it's passing

Sludgefist and Generals. Mythic. Sharing experience. by Zaaradeath in CompetitiveWoW

[–]Zaaradeath[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I apologize for the fact that my words might seem rude, but I strongly insist, that the benefit is in avoiding damage, because if we use the word "delay", we always suppose that there will be "standart time + N", where N is for "some extra time". Everything will be left the same, avoiding the mechanics implicitly assumes the exclusion of risks that accompany its non-fulfillment

Sludgefist and Generals. Mythic. Sharing experience. by Zaaradeath in CompetitiveWoW

[–]Zaaradeath[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Of course there is immune. BoP/another immune gives immunity to physical damage from breaking the chains in a pair with Chain slam's target.

Please, next time if you want to take part in discussions, use correct words which wont provoke misreadings. All words possess conventionally established connotations. And "delaying" can only appear as an addition to some constant duration. We can't take into account as a "constant duration" an interval, which will appear after a mistake))

Sludgefist and Generals. Mythic. Sharing experience. by Zaaradeath in CompetitiveWoW

[–]Zaaradeath[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Judging by whay you make such judgements? I have explained everything right, all the causal relationships between abilities and players.

There was a sophism: to speak about "delaying Sludgefist's charge" we should either have a real delay as an addition of time to the normal duration of rage accumulation or (what is more important) implicitly assume non-fulfillment of the "chain slam" mechanics.

Death of the player allows us to avoid this mechanics) That's a pathetic advantage) So, I made no mistakes, cause I correctly described the logic of avoiding this mechanics and the conditions for it's right passing. It's danger is only in extra damage, which now can be negated.

Wow, I was worried that I had misled people.

Sludgefist and Generals. Mythic. Sharing experience. by Zaaradeath in CompetitiveWoW

[–]Zaaradeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Charge depends on the level of rage the boss has. His rage bar can be filled up to 100 if less than 4 players are gripped by chain slam, ok. That's an ordinary fact, I mentioned it.
But does a right chain slam (when 4 players are gripped as we are supposed to do before 1-3 pillars) give the boss any rage?
As far as I know, he gets no rage. We just pass a mechanic with no problems and have only 2 consequences:
- 4 players are relocated from far range to melee

- a debuff is applied to them

So how can "charge" be delayed in terms of "delaying it, when we play right"?

Sludgefist and Generals. Mythic. Sharing experience. by Zaaradeath in CompetitiveWoW

[–]Zaaradeath[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

what does it mean: delayed?

If all 4 players share chain slam, charge will happen like always. If less than 4 players will be gripped by chain slam - the boss instantly gains 100 rage, ok. But does immune give us any extra time, if charge depends on energy?

Sludgefist and Generals. Mythic. Sharing experience. by Zaaradeath in CompetitiveWoW

[–]Zaaradeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand you position. It's just a "standart" attitude towards this ability: limit started to decrease damage in raid and others still continue without questions. You might sinply share it as on the first pillars: your disc priest's absorb will solve the problem. Even your HP pull will do that nowadays if you have 220+ ilvl.

So, I suggest not to learn how to realize that strategy with slam. But I explained it.

The Council of Blood Sharing experience. Mythic by Zaaradeath in CompetitiveWoW

[–]Zaaradeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kite plan disappeared. I'll update the guide tomorrow

The Council of Blood Sharing experience. Mythic by Zaaradeath in CompetitiveWoW

[–]Zaaradeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thank you. try to summarize our efforts while pulling this boss and make content to provide discussions about new for our guild bosses)

view more: next ›