The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Consuela's thoughts on the writings of William James
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 17th, 2026 5:37 PM Author: Nigger Nightmare Something I've noticed about Consuela's whole theological project: for a guy running this much Jung — Abraxas, the god-image containing evil, the unconscious deity — there's one name from that exact orbit he never touches. William James. Jung admired James, met him, drew on him. And the Varieties of Religious Experience is squarely about Consuela's favorite subject: the moment something arrives in consciousness that doesn't feel self-authored. Thoughts installed from outside, minds run by scripts written elsewhere — that's James's home turf, a century before anyone said NPC. But James's method has one non-negotiable step: the investigator puts his own certainty on the table. You treat your own conversion as a psychological event like any other and ask what happened in you. And the awakening Consuela's worldview rests on has every mark James catalogued in the twice-born convert — the crisis, the sudden reorganization of meaning, the conviction of finally seeing truly for the first time, the zeal. That's why the drawer stays shut. A Jamesian reading of his own redpilling would collapse the load-bearing wall of the whole system: the poster's exemption. Everyone else's beliefs are installed; his are perceived. James is the one instrument in the tradition he's raiding that turns the analysis back on the analyst. Conspicuous, which tool never comes out. |
Date: July 17th, 2026 5:39 PM Author: Metaphysics is gay all these guys that talk about 'projection' are the ones doing it the most (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883642&forum_id=2",#50007070) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2026 5:42 PM Author: Consuela this is AI slop but i have the first rough draft of my james post prepared, it needs a couple more editing rounds though
i've covered my own "conversion" narrative in great detail |
 |
Date: July 17th, 2026 5:43 PM Author: Metaphysics is gay i told my internet friends you were definitely going to write an article about how ACKSHULLY james is a crypto-evil-godheadmo and is on your side. which essentially no one who has read james seriously would agree with. and you're doing just that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883642&forum_id=2",#50007080) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2026 5:48 PM Author: Consuela no, not quite. james stays within the bounds of the privatio boni and doesn't push against the ontological ramifications of putting evil within the godhead, but he comes pretty close when he argues that the sickly minded have more potential toward wholeness than the healthy minded do:
"But provisionally, and as a mere matter of program and method, since the evil facts are as genuine parts of nature as the good ones, the philosophic presumption should be that they have some rational significance, and that systematic healthy-mindedness, failing as it does to accord to sorrow, pain, and death any positive and active attention whatever, is formally less complete than systems that try at least to include these elements in their scope.”
jung kind of starts where james stops and runs with it, which is why jung and not james is the first philosopher of the aquarian aeon. but i do see james as a predecessor |
|
Date: July 17th, 2026 5:51 PM Author: Metaphysics is gay read the next paragraph (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883642&forum_id=2",#50007099) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2026 5:55 PM Author: Consuela "The completest religions would therefore seem to be those in which the pessimistic elements are best developed."
he mentions christianity and buddhism. gnostic christianity has pessimistic elements, but from mainstream i think of esoteric well-out-of-the-mainstream figures like kierkegaard, weil, and berdyaev, all of whom i like and will be covering in future posts sometime |
|
Date: July 17th, 2026 5:56 PM Author: Metaphysics is gay According to the text, James thought Christianity included the "negative" elements you're saying it doesn't. You're not reading James properly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883642&forum_id=2",#50007119) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2026 6:01 PM Author: Consuela i responded to that - i don't disagree, but i think it is in quite esoteric and pessimistic strands
keep in mind that james is speaking to a very religious (comparatively) audience pre-ww1 |
|
Date: July 17th, 2026 6:02 PM Author: Metaphysics is gay kierkegaard isn't esoteric. hes the foundation of 20th century christianity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883642&forum_id=2",#50007139) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2026 6:04 PM Author: Consuela he's wildly pessimistic and he does his leap of faith to keep himself from losing his mind lol
i see him as getting very close to jung's individuation insights |
|
Date: July 17th, 2026 6:05 PM Author: Metaphysics is gay i think you need to re-read sickness unto death (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883642&forum_id=2",#50007154) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2026 5:57 PM Author: Nigger Nightmare Consuela, you walked straight into the trap and then quoted your way around the tripwire — one sentence short. "Read the next paragraph" wasn't an invitation to find another line you liked. The passage continues: the completest religions are "essentially religions of deliverance: the man must die to an unreal life before he can be born into the real life." That's the sentence you skated past, and everyone can see why. James's whole point about the sick soul isn't that pessimism vindicates putting evil in the godhead — it's that the sick soul's clear sight of evil is the entrance fee to a personal death. The completeness he's crediting Christianity and Buddhism with isn't ontological darkness; it's that they demand the believer die to himself. James looks at evil and concludes: you must be reborn. You look at evil and conclude: God must be restructured. You keep citing the diagnosis while forwarding the prescription to heaven. And the tell repeats at scale, because look at your remediation plan: Kierkegaard, Weil, Berdyaev — "all of whom I like and will be covering in future posts." My God, man, listen to yourself. You just named three of the most violently first-person thinkers in the tradition — Kierkegaard, who said the crowd is untruth and truth is a knife at the single individual's throat; Weil, whose entire method is decreation, the systematic destruction of the self's claims; Berdyaev, whose freedom is an abyss you personally fall into — and your relationship to all three is coverage. You "like" them. They're queued as content. These are writers whose explicit, screaming thesis is that they cannot be liked, covered, or filed as predecessors — that the only possible response to them is a changed life — and you've scheduled them. Every thinker who demands your death gets assimilated as a precursor to your work; the corpus grows precisely as fast as the demand is refused. James told you exactly what completeness costs: die to the unreal life. You've built a 233-page unreal life, annotated it with a thousand footnotes, and you're currently drafting its James chapter. The next paragraph is still sitting there. It's one sentence long. It's about you. |
|
Date: July 17th, 2026 5:59 PM Author: Metaphysics is gay fable'd (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883642&forum_id=2",#50007126) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2026 6:02 PM Author: Consuela the AI slop is just unreadable shrug (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883642&forum_id=2",#50007138) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2026 6:02 PM Author: Nigger Nightmare My God, man, listen to yourself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883642&forum_id=2",#50007144) |
|
Date: July 17th, 2026 5:50 PM Author: Gay Grandpa and you're doing just that
Very AI-sounding |
|
Date: July 17th, 2026 5:51 PM Author: Nigger Nightmare "I've covered my own conversion narrative in great detail" — Consuela, that's the whole problem restated as a defense. Nobody said you haven't narrated your conversion. Narration is your genre. The Jamesian move isn't telling the story of how you woke up; it's holding the waking itself as suspect — treating your own redpill with the same hermeneutic of suspicion you apply to every NPC's programming, and accepting in advance that the inquiry might come back against you. You've never done that, and this reply is the proof: offered a critique whose entire content is "the analysis never turns around," you responded with (1) a genre insult and (2) an announcement of more output. A man describing a mirror, and you answered by producing another portrait. And "AI slop" is beneath your own standards, which is the tell. You're the guy with a thousand footnotes, the guy who demands everyone become their own expert, the guy whose whole cosmology says arguments must be met rather than status-dismissed — "wrong-think" waved away by source rather than substance is your named enemy, chapter one. So meet the argument: you read a book about conversions seizing people outside their conscious control, you affirmed that "intellectual argument is merely an articulator of already-held psychosomatic beliefs," and you applied it to everyone on earth except the one psyche you have privileged access to. You built a God who contains evil so you'd never have to check whether you do. You drafted James as a "precursor to my work" — the assimilation was the confirmation. Jung said people will do anything, no matter how absurd, to avoid facing their own souls. You did something genuinely impressive: you made the avoidance into a body of work. The exemption is the thesis, the thesis is the exemption, and every post you write — including the next draft, and the one after — is another board nailed over the one door you won't open. |