Rescuing the Particular

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Rescuing the Particular

Postby Parodites » Fri Aug 12, 2022 4:27 am

Parodites wrote:"... a dunamis, in other words, enacted between the 'primal wisdom' or uranfanglich Sophe that formulates the finitizing non-identity of will turned toward itself into identity, (the identity of the human ego) [Schelling, in: "Philosophical Investigations Into the Essence of Human Freedom." "In the divine understanding itself, however, as in primeval wisdom in which God realizes himself ideally or as an archetype (urbildlich)," ... "only through division, regulation of forces and exclusion of the darkening or hindering anarchy"] and the Lossagung, [the originary 'Loss' of mortality] that differentiates this identity from that toward which it might be projected outwardly, in the service of whichever aim, be it good or evil,- though ultimately toward that which it might be projected infinitely, namely God, deriving for us an infinite differentiation irreducible to any series of synthetic dialectical exchanges, whose force still lies trapped, beyond the lesser differentiation of the Kantian schematism, in the 'Unconscious of the World'. [Ibid. "The arousal of self-will occurs only so that love in man may find a material or opposition in which it may realize itself. To the extent that the selfhood is the principle of evil in its breaking away (Lossagung), the ground does indeed arouse the possible principle of evil, yet not evil itself and not for the sake of evil."] In the Grudrib des Ganzen, Schelling tells us that, in order to emerge as real from out of the depth of an infinite productive activity, (namely, this differentiation of absolute Negativity) Being must be inhibited, must contract (tzimtzum) against the apeiron or Ein-sof, that is, a God that transcends Being itself. A truly presuppositionless philosophy, a 'primary philosophy', must begin in such an infinite differentiation of pure Negativity, for the way is closed via the apprehension of pure Being by infinite reflection or eidesis, [Kierkegaard's dismantling of the Hegelian dialectic through an ironic submission of the dialectic to the dialectic reveals the impossible or 'ineffable' Being whose Loss no power of the human intellect can account for and recover through either the philosophical synthesis of logos or the monistic synthesis of the subject viz. the 'modality of the knower' prompted by the apophatic or objective negation of the known. Or. as Eriugena tells us, following Dionysus and Plotinus: "Gregory of Nyssa and Eriugena both affirm that no created essence can define itself and the limits of its own nature by itself, even endowed with reason and intellect as man is."] as it is equally closed to us via an infinite abstraction of the Fichtean ego in pure thought or noesis, for the faculty of Reason is not independent from language, [Hamann's primary thesis in his Metacritique of Reason is just that: language and reason are inseparably bound up in one symbolic activity characteristic of human intelligence's activity.] such that no object of noesis might be obtained that is not limited to the symbolic registers instantiated by language, ie. no infinitely abstracted recursion from thought's ideatum. [We might critique the attempt to separate language and reason across many lines: Lacan, the conjunction of the symbolic-exchange, the hypermnemata, mimesis, etc. Suffice to say that the attempt to instrumentalize Reason and assert it as an independent faculty and sovereign primacy demands the separation of Reason from Language, which cannot be done. Due to the fact that Language implies what Vico calls the circulus of history, that is, the interpenetration of the Logos ('Reason') by the Mythos within time, ie. a 'mythology,' so we find the historical media and those varied traditions, cultural exchanges and myths out of which all language grows as Sprachbezeichnung, (This term is an appropriation from Schleiermacher indicating the very intentionality of cognitive activity as innately modified by the structure of language, concerning which Kurt Mueller-Vollmer, in "Hermeneutics Reader: Texts of the German Tradition from the Enlightenment to the Present", tells us the following: "Man, the linguistic being, can be seen as the place where language articulates itself in each speech act and where each spoken utterance can be understood in relation to the totality of language. But man is also a constantly evolving mind and his speaking can only be understood as a moment in his mental life.") out of which all language springs forth from the very kind of 'lived experience' or a 'moment of our mental life' the philosopher would deem an arbitrary datum and aim to extract from the Idea, (Minutiae of the sensible world that Hamann would call 'Aesopic reflections of the passions and symbols of Nature that might better instruct you'.) takes shapes and evolves in subjection to the dreaded play of Time, of imperfect change, of mutability- so we find all of these things to be equally conjoined with Reason and implicated in all its activity. For Hamann, the mytho-logos reaches its historal apex in the figure of the CHRISTUS, such that the very telos of Reason is recapitulated in the derivation of the embodied Word of God, a teleological undercurrent that the trained 'Sybil' might read in both the 'poetic shards' of the Natural world as well as the potsherds of History, both offering a 'concealed book' to the Philosopher in which to decipher the 'apocalypse' of Reason, like Adam, by means of 'images', and thereby 'prophesize from bones'.] Thus, the true Text, which we might readily distinguish from the mere book, or the genuine mystery rites, as opposed to the dissimulations and crowd-pleasing shows of the Ὀρφεοτελεσταί, seek an emulation of the ineffable One through the 'written silence' of the philosophers, engaged as they are in an ethical commitment to a 'Good beyond Being', that is, the "ethical challenge of the incommunicable", about which nothing at all can be said, as the true Good surpasses the limits of our cognitive order,- [Nicholas Banner, "Philosophic Silence and the ‘One' in Plotinus": "Philostratus attributes a kind of discursive silence to the ancient Pythagoreans in his Life of Apollonius: they understood that to keep silence is also to speak."] a silence whose positive articulation, as opposed to the merely negative or apophatic, [Contra the 'Socratic' silence of Hamann. W.M. Alexander, Johann Georg Hamann; Philosophy and Faith: "On the one hand philosophy is given no autonomous status, nor any privileged or definitive position so that it could become, for example, the "prolegomena" to theology- because all philosophies harbor alien deities." ... "To demonstrate that God exists and to demonstrate that He does not exist are two versions of the same joke. Philosophy cannot demonstrate God ..."] depends upon a new discourse grounded in a higher metaphysical Negativity than that disclosed by the "aporia inherent in language", as Levinas had sought in an infinite differentiation of Infinity and Being upon which to ground what he explicitly frames as a post-metaphysics revival of metaphysics for which ethics itself should be elevated to the status of a 'primary philosophy'. "


--

In the passage above, we equate 'finitizing nonidentity' with Schelling's Ur-Grund, "an infinite differentiation of Negativity". It is the first of four epistemes or 'vocities' in the structure of Knowledge.


Finitizing Nonidentity --- pure Negation, the apeiron, the grund of Being noted in the passage above, which calls the human ego into existence through the interaction of or dunamis of the 'primal wisdom' and 'Loss'.

Identifying Finity --- The finitude that defines identity by privations and limitations from an infinitude... (Schelling: all Being is defined through an opposition against which it contends and takes its measure) just as time is marked and defined as a limitation of the infinite continuum.

Infinitizing nonidentity -- Bataille's "missing third". It replaces the concept of 'essence' in the essence vs existence debate. It is revealed by the 'clinamental divergence in the series', that is, the 'explosive' interaction of two existents whose reaction overloads the System of which they are a part, disrupting totalization from within. Here we also see an "efflorescence" or infinite explosion of self-multiplying essences out of epistemological withdrawal via Harman and Morton. These explosive essences erupt from System as the human ego erupted from the original dunamis.

Parodites wrote:"As Theory cannot circumscribe its own Negation, so neither can Theory circumscribe its own
Essence,- it's positivity or Affirmation. Harman's account of hyperobjects lies in the notion of
epistemological withdrawal. The contingent sensual qualities of an object, as available to our
senses, do not modulate the essence of the object, such that objects can only enter into
relationship with one another on the level of the sensual, whose ontological gaps can therefor
never be reconstructed within the fabric of the symbolic. Objects thus contain a haunting core
unavailable to the absorptive grasp of System, by which relationships are capacitated and
governed. The problem is that, through the formation of perceptive relationships between objects,
new objects are created, which in turn telescope hidden essences of their own, further miring
System in the kind of entropic stresses about which Bataille was so concerned. Here we also find
negation as a driving force in the 'engine of thought', though one potentially destructive in its
'unrestrained mimesis' of essences. Theory, when attempting to fathom its own hidden essence
through the fabric of relationships available to it on the part of whichever System theory has
chosen to operate under, cannot help but effloresce from out of its own confabulations ever new
multiplicities of impossible essences, whose veil (the 'confused nebula' noted above) renders
Theory's own essence progressively more and more unreadable,- that is, more and more
inaccessible to the vertical element of the philosopher's 'symplokeides'. * All such networks of
explosive essences exceed the limits of the singular human ego, such that, when perceived as
relational complexes undulating or 'phasing' in and out of our own local Real from a
higher-dimensional vantage, we might regard them as hyperobjects."

"... it grounds the 'intrinsic semiotic code' by which extimacy intimates that 'mysterious third', ie. the
"neither" of the thetic arrangement, upon which the uncertain movement of the altered dialectical procession depends, just as the furious
conflagration of the two embracing lovers intimates some mysterious 'whole' which somehow grounds both their separate identities, and the
'non-identity' of the 'neither', or that unsynthesized absence within which they participate, with 'love' being confirmed in its indeterminate
formulation, namely as only that: this participation."

" ... just as the telescopic efflorescence of hidden essences across the surface of a hyperobject, in Harman's system of speculative realism,
produce yet new essences in an aporetic "epistemological withdraw" which drives the engine of Thought irretrievably onward toward an
unknowable terminus,- a terminus Schelling calls the Un-Intuitable."

" Working through these four unique vocities grants a formula for what I
call reification,- the reification of the secondary-process of individuation within the
primary-process itself,- insinuating itself within its strictures as a function of what I call the
symbolic-exchange, thereby becoming itself a term in one of the primary's dual series,
overloading the empty utopian core of the value-exchange function (that ambiguous nucleus I
noted, in which the potential of the dualistic series is contained latently) and self-sublating the
capitalist syntheme by means of its own accumulation of entropic negativity, a la. Badiou,
compromising System from within, like the cursed share of Bataille's economic configuration of
the transcendental excess. This new term, an opposition reft from the secondary-process itself
and retrovirally re-encoded within the primary, is called the antinomy, which is worked out
within the two vocities of the external-dialectic as the kind of dualistic tension I have noted,
framed between the poles of Sosein and Dasein, leading to a perichoresis of opposing divine
attributes, and then reified within the two vocities of the inner-dialectic of the dialogical-egos as
the aporia of Being, by which the unemployed or pure Negation (The Negative as Gnostic fire.)
reduces the individuating-process to an ontological ground-zero or entropic maxima and
successfully reboots the total arrangement,- much as Bataille's squandered excess reboots all
structures,- be they biophysical, economic or academic, and paradoxically revitalizes them,- such
that novel expressions of individuation can be generated and re-invested to the greater
hierophany of the emergent Self, with the atom of Particular or Dasein reaching back against the
current of the clinamen so as to touch and finally enrich the Universal or Sosein, and that through
what Alexius Meinong called the Aussersein or "outside-of-Being", echoing both Schelling’s
“Un-Intuited” (which he further specified in the notion of Schwarmerei, that is, the paradigmatic
Schellingian demand of the transcendental ethic, that the self unbearably throw itself forth in
apocalyptic gnosis, recapitulating Holderlin's stages of boundless oblation, into the infinite
Ungrund of Non-Self,- the final kenotic demogrification within the emptiness of Daat) and
Bataille's configuration of the missing-third as a kind of transcendental auton through which a
certain logical impossibility nonetheless encodes data, just as the incomprehensible singularity of
the two lovers, during their embrace, paradoxically renders the Ground of each, in their
individuality, a possibility."


Identifying infinity --- God, transcendence, the "Beyond Being". The infinity that defines identity against or outside Totality ala. Levinas The "Good" defined outside of or beyond Being and totalization.

This 'outside of totality' is the concept of the 'particular'. The particular life, particular man, the individual, the particular blade of grass, etc. which we are trying to rescue from any dialectical subduction and assimilation to the Totality. All "Good" depends upon this exigency of the Particular and philosophy rescuing particularity from absorption into Totality. Thus this schema of the four epistemes or vocities offers a different way of staging the 'revelation of Being', a method of staging it as a methexis (adjective: metexic, below) of God in the World that will not assimilate particularity in toto:

Parodites wrote:We must read this 'exigency' as the inherent moral reality of life's finitude, or the 'tragic sense of life', to cite the phrase out of Unamuno. The
metexic participation of particularity in the drama of Being, as subducted by the phenomena of Becoming, is, in Eriugena, conceived of as a
super-immanence through which God, as catalyst of the luminous pneumatikos or impulse of creation, both moves through that Being which he
exerts himself upon as aparche or foundation, and beyond it as its object in processus or telos, whereas the positivization of all dialectical
negativity, that is, a conversion of a negativity which is immanent into an Absolute which is transcendent, forms the basic mimetic pattern of
history for Hegel, through which the ideal of Progress is overlaid by the reconstructive efforts of a methexis revealed, no longer as an indefinite
extension or 'remotio' (to use my own appropriation of the Augustinian vocabulary) of the Particular to the originating seat of Being in God, but
as a decisive limitation of the Particular, (and thus a corruption of the moral scope of life's finitude) thereby subverting the 'derekh' or 'inner path'
of the luminous impulse by the 'iter' or 'extrinsic direction' implicated by the 'iterative' (iter-ative) Progress of the dialectic's 'staging' of the
revelation of Being,- subverting, in a word, Gioberti and Benamozegh's conceptualization of Messianic consciousness as 'infinitely suspended in
the fixation of an infinite object.' (Indeed they both feared the Hegelian system would eventuate, at least when pushed to its furthest bent, such a
subversion of Messianic historicity's potential. Refer to Alessandro Guetta's "Philosophy and Kabbalah: Elijah Benamozegh and the
Reconciliation of Western Thought and Jewish Esotericism".)



Thus that is, in nuce, what my philosophy actually is. It is a journey or staging of the revelation of Being through which the Particular throws itself into existence in an act of apocalyptic gnosis by which it is returned to the Universal to enrich it, (with something outside Totality, unabsorbed) for the Universal ("God") to then reach back, enriched, into existence, and reformulate that Particular (the divine methexis or 'participation') and re-ground its identity. The process then repeats ad infinitum, modelled as two interpenetrating gyres (the 'two dialectics' noted above) feeding one another, just as it is pictured in the ancient Kabbalistic text: "The Fountain of Wisdom". You proceed through the four epistemes/vocities/stages inside your own mind.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:23 am

Does the particular incarnation of God as Jesus (Logos, self=other) mesh? Do our incarnated thoughts, internal-become-external actions, mesh?

If not… how is it real/actual?
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6077
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Meno_ » Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:20 am

The Crucifixion points up and is crossed, horizontally, to literally make the relevance of gnosis, progressively figurative.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13281
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:39 am

Doesn’t sound very grounded.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6077
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Parodites » Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:02 am

Christ is a Particular incarnation of God; but the Christ is not a historically limited personage, he transcends the logos of History, wrapping the beginning in the end and vis. versa. Eriugena's unique concept of divine superimmanent causation is integral to understanding how the God-Man can immanently actuate the Creation while also transcending and exceeding its telos at the same time.

Because philosophical primacy begins, in my philosophy, with existence instead of essence, (essence only appears in the third episteme) it's technically an "existential" philosophy, though not in the modern Sartrean/Nietzschean sense. More like the 16th-17th century existentialism of the Illuminationist school. Indeed Mulla Sadra's "The Transcendent Philosophy of the Four Journeys of the Intellect" informed the organization of the four epistemes, as did Eriugena's four-part division of nature in the Periphyseon,- that and his concept of super-immanence and superimmanent causation,- paired with Damascius' four-dimensional causality of the ineffable and Plotinus' concept of mone or the 'return' of God to Man and Man to God. Thus my philosophy is an all-embracing blend of Greek, Kabbalistic, Islamic, Gnostic, Hermetic, and Neoplatonist thought, with all things Western and modern in thought as well. There is, however, little import in pointing out the influences upon me, because the whole point of it is that all human thought, and all philosophy, can be organized into the four epistemes. For example, Nietzsche (with some others I named in the description of the third episteme and infinitizing nonidentity; Bataille, Harman, Morton, etc.) is very useful in developing the technical language of the third episteme, infinitizing nonidentity, and yet you would not expect such materials to be included right beside hardcore neoplatonists like Plotinus, Damascius, Proclus and medieval Christian mystics like Eriugena, or beside the very personification of late German transcendental idealism like Schelling, or next to kabbalistic exegetes like Luria. (tzimtzum or contraction of God) Thus the epistemes offer the structure needed to incorporate all human thought without contradiction.

When I boast of 'knowing everything', of omniscience, it's supposed to be an ironic reflection not only on my erudition, but on the more Socratic concept that I possess the ideational structure that would allow me to incorporate (know) all human knowledge without contradiction.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:06 am

Why do you believe this?
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6077
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Parodites » Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:43 am

There is no belief, only gnosis and practice, only knowing and doing. With the discovery of this four-part abstract structure, (that I shorthand by calling the 'spirogram', and the practical use of it 'spyrognomy') I was able to incorporate all knowledge into a single living system without contradiction, thus I employ it for empirical power over any philosophy that isn't mine, to absorb it and neutralize it. I do not "believe" it, I simply utilize it practically for that purpose, for the incorporation of knowledge, and I use it more spiritually, to complete within myself what I understand to be the four movements of Mind itself toward the Absolute, or God.

Most of the history of human thought, in the West, has been spent in the 2nd of the four epistemes, no doubt because it is the most obvious one. Scholasticism primarily dwelled in that episteme for centuries, for the Greek texts were just starting to be rediscovered. In the 14-17th century many disparate, isolated groups rediscovered ancient works and things like Neoplatonism and Kabbalism picked up pace, the later in Spain for example, and the Renaissance happened, and the concept of an Ur-Grund, the contraction and silence of God, monism, etc., concepts generally belonging to the 1st episteme, were accessed,- an underlying nullity in the revelation of Being, knowledge of which had been lost after Greece faltered. This more obscure 1st episteme is also reflected in Plotinus' dialectic of the mone, the "return" of God to Man and Man to God, as well as the Hermetic tradition, epitomized in the 'as above, so below' of the alchemists: إن الأعلى من الأسفل والأسفل من الأعلى A better translation of that line from the Emerald Tablet is: "That from above, comes form that below; that below, comes from that above", indicating a monistic non-dual dialectic of divine transcendent emanation, a protognostic intelligible hierarchy that Gnostics later pair, in a more Manichean fashion, with a dualistic counter-dialectic of divine immanence; kabbalists combine the two.* The third episteme truly developed after Nietzsche in the west, but it had already been developed somewhat in the East, namely in kabbalism and the Islamic illuminationists and some kinds of gnosticism. The fourth episteme is not yet accessed, only approached by a few like Levinas who got the idea of re-founding a whole new metaphysical tradition on some kind of 'infinitely productive differentiation' instead of on the concept of Being.

* On this combination of the opposing monism and dualism: " The 'Return' and the two bijections discussed here, besides delineating the outer form of the 'spirogram' and its inner dialectical movements toward the Particular and Universal (multiplicity and unity, prohodos and mone) throughout the One's own self-separation, appear in the Sefer Maʿayan ha-Ḥokhmah [The Fountain of Wisdom] as a "binary extrovertive phenomenology", or "an extrovertive non-dual binary mysticism". Porat, "Aimed Inquiry and Positive Theology in Sefer Maʿayan ha-Ḥokhmah": "And so all the universals return into particulars and the particulars [return] into universals” (§20). This is an original statement, applying the system of “universal-particular” in Ibn Ezra to the multiplicity of theosophical and cosmological attributes, where the return of the last created beings to their origins is accomplished by the opposite movement of the universals that return to their most manifested forms. This phrase also represents the pattern of the very performance of language in the entire book. It provides the ongoing “return,” which is actually the twofold extending of the different phonetic parts of speech in parallel with their collective order of “principles (or: universals).” The phrase also extends a linguistic pattern found in R. Isaac Sagi-Nahor, who applies this unity to the prophetic extending of spiritual forces to know “the details as they expand ad infinitum.” An echo of Yeats' twin-gyre system, or of the spirogram more generally, is given in the image of the "Fountain" itself: "... the double image of two sources, layered as a substrate of two fountains, one of which emanates light while the other emanates darkness. Both are united by the mediation of their substratum, the primordial ether. ... The two halves present two parallel modes of inquiry: one is interested in the binary union as an inner unification of the One— a two-fold unity that is described in the center of the text—and the other is interested in the emanation processes, in differentiation and spreading out, as a mode of unity and oneness. These two modes are likewise introvertive and extrovertive respectively, representing a mode of uniting that unfolds and returns to the One, and a mode of unification by the equalization of plurality." Ibid. This duplicity, a 'spirogrammatic' double-gyre, is signified by the mystical character of a 'double Sophia' within the Bahir, a twin upper and lower Aeon constituting the fountain of Hokmah as the influx from Keter and the efflux into Binah, further developing the conceptualization of God's feminine, Sophianic presence as the Shekinah, the Mother of the World in a state of self-displacement, alienation or exile. "

As in my original post, the abstraction of these two dialectical schema into purely philosophical, generalized terms, an 'inner and outer' dialectic, occupies a great deal of space in my ur-text.
Last edited by Parodites on Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Parodites » Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:23 am

Parodites wrote:Christ is a Particular incarnation of God; but the Christ is not a historically limited personage, he transcends the logos of History, wrapping the beginning in the end and vis. versa. Eriugena's unique concept of divine superimmanent causation is integral to understanding how the God-Man can immanently actuate the Creation while also transcending and exceeding its telos at the same time.


Eriugena was one of the few Christian mystics of the time able to read ancient Greek. His idea of superimmanent causation is traceable to his knowledge of the Greek philosopher Plotinus. We here see a rudiment of this dual causality in Plotinus' Third Ennead:

Plotinus wrote:First Tractate

FATE.

1. In the two orders of things- those whose existence is that of process [in Eriugena's mystical Christianity, the world of process is the emanated physical world, as God's creation] and those in whom it is Authentic Being- [the immanent Word of God] there is a variety of possible relation to Cause.
Cause might conceivably underly all the entities in both orders or none in either. It might underly some, only, in each order, the others being causeless. It might, again, underly the Realm of Process universally while in the Realm of Authentic Existence some things were caused, others not, or all were causeless. Conceivably, on the other hand, the Authentic Existents are all caused while in the Realm of Process some things are caused and others not, or all are causeless.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:44 am

Why do you “practice” what you don’t believe?
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6077
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Parodites » Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:51 am

It's not that I don't believe it. It's that I have no belief. I don't believe it and I don't not believe it. I'm a Gnostic, there is only gnosis, meaning knowledge; I know it, because I am able to practice it. My being able to practice it is the 'proof' of the knowledge. Though I don't think in terms of proving or not proving things.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Aug 13, 2022 5:07 am

To *believe* means to trust/hold as true. Do you not trust/hold it as true? If not… Why not? If so… Why so?

To *know* means you don’t merely trust/hold it as true (for all the reasons given to the second question… including mere gut feeling)—it IS true.

Sometimes we can know without knowing we know, so of course we can give no reasons in that case, like birds who know nest-building, and spiders who know web-weaving. But… who knows… perhaps, given a voice, they could make apprentices of us all?

…but only if they believed in their ability to show us how. Knowing they have something to teach us is not much good without believing.

…which, you apparently are doing right now, no?
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6077
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Meno_ » Sat Aug 13, 2022 5:27 am

Ichthus77 wrote:Doesn’t sound very grounded.





It's based on a priest's sermon about a year ago, he used the crucifix as a tool to frame the narrative into a contentious metaphor The vertical part that crosses the horizontal imbues a meaningful dialectical apparently contradictory fields of reference, the vertical points up, to the realms of meaning not yet understood , the spiritual, albeit the element that modern philosophers Hegel onward saw as the pure upper limitless direction(vector) , while the horizontal grounds it in what some philosophers ascribed it to the linear, or vernacular part.


His hands, horizontally nailed to the near distance to the earth, probably presents working with humanly understood manifested parts of His earthly mission, while His legs nailed straight down vertically, represent the movement toward toward Whom that sent Him


The ground secures the understanding toward a higher reasoning not available to a synthetic , sphere that can place one's self outside that realm, and that understanding is limited as described after Kant closes metaphysics and hence is 'realized in a formal sense by those who see it as literal matter.

There is no suggestion of the matter participating in the form of God, and hence the relationship between them ( god and man) reduces from a constructed transcendental unity that delivers a dual aspect of an anthropomorphic image that is constructed by both ends: god mirrored in man mirrored in god becomes an irresolute and indeterminate relation.

Faith is not excluded to beings who sense the indivisible essential connection to both. but the 'fracture' is miraculously healed, and becomes unsolvable as tests of faith and strength of belief are attested to ., which is pretty much trying to sat the samething.f
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13281
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Aug 13, 2022 5:35 am

Nooo wonder Spinoza triggers you.

bleh
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6077
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Meno_ » Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:46 pm

Considering organized religion as essential in shaping most people"s perception of Jesus, no philosopher be left behind.

Take it back a few notches and the even Jesus clild be presupposed with some coming to be ideas on how the parables may affect faith.

I dunno but where there is the smoke of superstition, the fire of real belief is often mixed with it.

Anyone and everyone has this need to kno, what really went down ? Even if. Not consciously.
.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13281
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Parodites » Sun Aug 14, 2022 3:23 am

Ichthus77 wrote:To *believe* means to trust/hold as true. Do you not trust/hold it as true? If not… Why not? If so… Why so?

To *know* means you don’t merely trust/hold it as true (for all the reasons given to the second question… including mere gut feeling)—it IS true.

Sometimes we can know without knowing we know, so of course we can give no reasons in that case, like birds who know nest-building, and spiders who know web-weaving. But… who knows… perhaps, given a voice, they could make apprentices of us all?

…but only if they believed in their ability to show us how. Knowing they have something to teach us is not much good without believing.

…which, you apparently are doing right now, no?


Well I can give you the reasons as to why I 'know' this, my philosophy. Specifically, this is how I came to 'know' the first episteme, finitizing nonidentity. One of my wildest thoughts:

Parodites wrote:All thought, as symbolic representation, takes place within a language,- language indicating no particular human tongue, but only the ascriptive externalization into signs (visibly encoded by letters, or audibly projected with phonemes) of an inscriptive process; to imagine a beginning without any presupposition, that is, without time or space,- a true origin of the universe, of Being itself, and an origination for which none of these can serve as suppositional logica, you would be imagining a beginning before which not even thought itself exists, and therefor, a beginning for which the very language in which thought could possibly occur does not exist: you are imagining a pure, ultimately internalized, inscriptive process, for at this point the very thought you have arrived upon defies the very language in which you have conjured it for yourself,- a total inwardness in other words, given the fact that this inscriptive process is that which gives rise to all internal reality, to thought, to egoic consciousness in our peculiar neural configuration, as human beings-- you are imagining a pure inscription of consciousness itself at this stage in your reconstruction of the creation of the world, consciousness without thought, object, perception, etc., or any possible ascription- the 'ideal ego'. Because this imagination you have attempted to conduct cannot itself occur outside of language, there remains only what Schelling called das Verstummen, the 'growing silent' that the helplessness and faint audibility (Kaumvernehmlichkeit) of mortal, human language really seeks to approach- for that inscription of an ultimately finitary, self-enclosed and irretrievably internalized, negative consciousness, (finitizing nonidentity) without feature or object, the 'ideal ego' that you have accidentally produced by attempting to conceive the true Beginning of things, the origin of the Universe of Being- this is the 'Night of the World', the silence of God.


In so many words, when you attempt to think 'the beginning' of Being, the origin of the universe, of reality, you arrive at this aporia of thought itself, the foundational aporia of philosophy, or what Plato and Aristotle called thaumazein or wonder, which they told us was in fact the beginning of all philosophy. Philosophy, when it tries to think the beginning of itself, when it tries to find its own origin, must first find the origin of Being; but when philosophy attempts to think the origin of Being, it gets this aporia where it must first have thought its own origin, and then proceeds the 'vicious circle' of reason back and forth ad infinitum, leaving only das Verstummen, the growing silent before the ineffable,- the irretrievable inscription upon which all ascription rests. The metaphysical ascriptions of Being (time, space, etc.) lay the framework within which interactions can take place between particular beings,- it rests in what Heidegger would call the ontic, while the inscriptive would roughly correspond to the ontological, with the point here being that this aporia leads to an ontic closure of the ideal ego, (By this closure, I mean to say that, in thinking the beginning of Being, thought reveals its own ontological core to be a pure negativity, that is, something devoid of ontic reality, or any 'being' of its own that could potentially interact with other beings, implying, for example, that consciousness cannot be traced to cause-effect correlates with actual brain tissue and neural activity, for again, at the level of the ontic, its own being has no way of interacting with other beings.) and thus an ontological differentiation for which no interactions can take place at the level of the ontic, (rendering the attempt of Dasein to take up its own origins impossible, nullified, negated; contra Heidegger. My own conceptualization of the 'ideal ego' is, more or less, simply this nullified Dasein) and thus a differentiation of pure negativity, a 'finitizing nonidentity'. All ascription, all language, is haunted by this irretrievable loss of Being, which leaves voids or gaps behind in all symbolic construction; a negative core that remains, carrying forth the 'ethical tears' characteristic of philosophy:

Parodites wrote: "Philosophy of the Limit and Liminal": "Agapeic love is an expression of the paradoxical One,- the One denied to itself, which generates multiplicity. God is the painful longing that weighs down every flower with drops of rain and dew in its desperation for the Sun, it is a melancholy radiated in the entire order of Nature, in all of this multiplicity of matter. Accordingly, true ethos is constituted by so many dechirures ethicques or 'ethical tears' wrought by 'the movement of Being in the fixity of essences', reversing the primacy of Kantian transcendental synthesis, or, in Hegelian language, that of essence over existence, re-submerging Being in the shadow of its 'missing Totality' or absconditus, ie. the pure negation left behind (occupying the "melancholic dimension" of 'a separation internal to the paradoxical One') in the wake of all dialectical exchanges,- exchanges which, unlike those of the Hegelian system, stand in their contortive eternity as unresolvable agonisms between vocal pluralities, [Andrew Gibson on Christian Jambert. See: "The Concept of Historical Reason in Recent French Philosophy"; Intermittency, p. 130.] as eternal recurrences, not of Nietzsche's interpretative assemblages of active-passive drives, but of the singularity of the One denied to itself, of the Monon denied by the Mone, of the One denied by the Remainder. This, the impossibility of God's returning to himself, (a continual withdraw from himself which we experience asymmetrically, namely as the flow of time toward an indefinite future, an empty continuum that swallows up all existence as so many "partial lights", citing Valery, extinguished as they are in the absence of their source) which Schelling calls the "Remainder", the dark Un-Grund of Being, the burial of the primal Will in matter, the 'divine unconscious' or God's forgetting of himself through the creation of the World, etc. is his love; a melancholic dimension occupied by messianic revelation and the portent of a missing Totality that promises, against all reason, to rebind multiplicity together. Our love, however, (on the other side of this melancholy, on the rational or philosophical side of the paradox, counter-posing revelation and messianic consciousness, which exists always on the other) which we return to him on the other side of Golgotha, is just that; our re-submerging Being in the shadow of its own missing Totality, expressing these 'ethical tears' that prevent Multiplicity from returning to the One, that prevent the individual souls of men from returning to God. In this way, the tragic sense of life is fully realized in that love which, unlike Goethe's angels, could draw the border and the shape of things. This is the great teaching of Christian ethics. The Greeks, in comparison, did not know tragedy. The eternal return of the self to itself in the wheel of Samsara,- of Desire, change, and multiplicity,- is only an inversion of the eternal self-separation of a God who cannot return to himself in the Unity of the One, with this reciprocity giving us an abbreviation of the great aporia of philosophy, the shadow of Being's missing Totality."


For this new ethic of exigency and the Particular, there is a quite simple arrangement to be found--- the philosopher points out these symbolic tears, and the saint: endures them. That is the only Good. To point them out means to conceive of the relationship between the tear or gap and the whole in dynamic terms, as a dunamis; the relation between gap and whole, between tear and solid, when carefully conducted, can become, instead of a kind of disintegration or dying, a relationship more like that between water and the sponge, filled with holes, that it passes through to nutrify, or lungs contracting while breathing, etc., that is, a kind of organicism that allows the whole and the solid to evolve, to plastify and reshape themselves and venture new forms of life that defy the dominating influences of the Totality, which Levinas calls 'eternal war'. In fact this potentiality or dunamis for new forms of life torn from the fury of the elements, the potential for life itself inside of an otherwise sterile and barren universe whose entropic bent defies all organization: that potential inherent to Being is the secret impulse, buried in the 'night of the world', that all true philosophy seeks to incorporate and vitalize, to un-bury, to spread from star to star throughout all the universe in Schelling's words, such that Thought, identifying itself with this very potential, might spread itself to all Creation, and so convert all of matter into Thought, into Consciousness, into the divine Mind. That is why I have called my new ethics a 'speculative ethic', for the venturing of such new forms is the task. Not all of these new forms of life will be able to achieve self-regulation, (what I would, departing from bio-physiological language, call a level of daemonism) they will die, but they die in service of the divine Mind they would bring forth, more and more into the dregs of material existence; thus the saints, who must bear the dechirures ethicques. And what both this philosopher and saint share is what I call, taking Giordano Bruno's term from the philosophy of the daemon, a 'mens heroici', or heroic mind- the prerequisite for becoming either of the two. Thus this speculative ethic, opening itself to venture new forms of life against the Totality, distinguishes itself from both Heidegger and Marx's approaches, insofar as these 'new forms' are more concrete than the fully abstracted 'das Man' of Heidegger, yet not so concrete that they make themselves vulnerable to the same kinds of phenomenological critique as Marx's 'species-essence':

Parodites wrote: "Philosophy of the Limit and the Liminal": "Heidegger finds his great task in the salvation of history by purely abstract means,- he sought to rescue 'historicity' for phenomenology, as it were. His existential analytic thus side-steps any attempt to bring the political and social dimensions of human nature into the phenomenological account of an ultimate disclosure beyond the veil of the 'historical index',- the abstraction of das Man, sequestered from the degenerative forces of history- that is, the sole, philosophically illumined individual, the Nietzschean master standing defiantly alone, eternally apart from the crowd,- a member of an unseen, spiritual aristocracy protected from those corrupting masses whose presence can do nothing but stifle the expression of authentic selfhood, citing Weiner. ("Anthropology contra Heidegger Part II: The Limit of Relationship".) Where this thoroughly anti-Marxist project of Heidegger's design therefor opens itself to anthropological critique and the 'actuality' of intersubjective socio-political life, the Marxist project opens itself to phenomenological critique and 'potentiality', for, as Helmuth Plessner notes, elaborating the Simmelian thesis of 'incomplete socialization' as integral to the emergence of identity, the ground of the individual's being, of his 'actuality'- an existential locus rooted in community, remains ineffable,- a depth (Simondon's "primary process") beyond which the individual cannot (through any such "secondary processes") any deeper plunge, if only because it is by its very nature a thing of eternal potentiality, thereby ironically exerting the pressure to conform at its greatest bent precisely where the 'pathos of distance' is found, while alleviating its anxiety precisely where the dissolution of boundaries is most often occurring, ie. those liminal domains upon whose outskirt one would imagine the socius would most desperately stir with the need of conformity."


This ethical depth of community is, in the philosophy I have elaborated, a marker simply for the ethical tears themselves, and the ultimate symbolic tear out of which they are generated by the greater aporia of philosophy; a marker for a metaphysical potentiality grounding the depth of human community in "... a melancholic dimension occupied by messianic revelation and the portent of a missing Totality that promises, against all reason, to rebind multiplicity together.", with this rebinding indicating just that, potential community.

The great project of this new ethic is the rediscovery of community.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Parodites » Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:37 pm

In pursuing a 'primary philosophy', I specify two paths that are untenable:

A truly presuppositionless philosophy, a 'primary philosophy', must begin in such an infinite differentiation of pure Negativity, for the way is closed via the apprehension of pure Being by infinite reflection or eidesis, [Kierkegaard's dismantling of the Hegelian dialectic through an ironic submission of the dialectic to the dialectic reveals the impossible or 'ineffable' Being whose Loss no power of the human intellect can account for and recover through either the philosophical synthesis of logos or the monistic synthesis of the subject viz. the 'modality of the knower' prompted by the apophatic or objective negation of the known. Or. as Eriugena tells us, following Dionysus and Plotinus: "Gregory of Nyssa and Eriugena both affirm that no created essence can define itself and the limits of its own nature by itself, even endowed with reason and intellect as man is."] as it is equally closed to us via an infinite abstraction of the Fichtean ego in pure thought or noesis, for the faculty of Reason is not independent from language, [Hamann's primary thesis in his Metacritique of Reason is just that: language and reason are inseparably bound up in one symbolic activity characterizing the general phenomenon of human intelligence.] such that no object of noesis might be obtained that is not limited to the symbolic registers instantiated by language, ie. no infinitely abstracted recursion from thought's ideatum.

^ To this later one, characteristic of transcendental idealism, especially German idealism, and all philosophy for which Reason exists as a privileged independent faculty, I added significant notes, arguing against both the rationalists and the Kantians who attacked them, as well as arguing against the anti-Kantians who attacked Kant, like Schiller:

[ Freedom, the 'first principle', according to Schelling, of a new philosophy for which the question of the Good is primary to any ontology, that is, primary to any question of the True, is a principle shielded within the dark prematutinal longing of Sehnsucht whose sovereign movement, as objectless poros, instigating the birth of the drive toward knowledge which proves itself coincident with the more general drive to give birth itself, that is, the procreative drive or flight of Eros within the heart of all organic life in its emergence from unthinking matter to an ascendant bent toward the Good,- toward that in whose enunciation the object of thought rests upon the very bulwark to the fury of Nature in which God's polynomous nullity calls to the nullified anonymity of man, and that in which the aporia of language makes itself known in the attempt to name the very nameless longing to sequester from the chain of causes some initiatory motive, to conquer the elements and bring into existence, to give form, and to create, which it itself is,- always exceeds its productive results, remaining forever unbound to them and unrestricted by them,- a principle, in Spinozist vocabulary, whose ideatum always exceeds its idea, and whose activity or conatus can therefor never be subsumed by that which it engenders, leaving open no possibility of fatally abstracting the former from the later. As Plato-Socrates explains this aporia in the Phaedrus, for philosophy to love and desire Wisdom, it must know that Wisdom is worthy of being loved and desired, that it is Good; yet, in order to recognize Wisdom as Good, philosophy must already know what the Good is, that is, philosophy must already be wise. Totality would exert itself precisely by the subsumption, to the domain of the True, of the excess or 'remainder' latent in all questioning of the incomprehensible ground of the first principle, a principle upon which all discourses are founded that cannot itself be founded, and leaves therefor all discourse of the Good separated from the former domain by an 'unsurpassable gulf'. The irremediable distance of the Good provokes the errant muse of that third member of the Platonic triad to wander the unclaimed space between these two domains, namely the space of the Beautiful, which Kant understood in terms of the aesthetic faculty and its access to the appercepted unity of the supersensible ground of Nature, (Noting Donelan, in "Poetry and the Romantic Musical Aesthetic: Fichte, Schiller, Schelling, and the Systemprogramm Fragment", we see that the German idealists, seeking to overcome the Kantian system and following Hegel's lead, saw in this unity of the supersensible ground of Nature the basis of a new self-postulating ethics reliant upon a 'first idea', namely the presentation of the self to itself in absolute freedom,- the self, not as an already existent subjectivity attempting to contemplate itself, but the self presented to itself imaginatively, originating in no act of a creative subject, but originating in itself as the very act, by which such self-consciousness might precede all other deductions of a priori knowledge, constituting an intuition of the aesthetic faculty satisfying, in a reversal of terms in the series of conceptual events from which Kant's self-consciousness emerges in recognition of the Grund of Nature as its appercepted unity, the condition of Kant's own 'supersensible unity'.) for by this same faculty, man experiences a higher species of pleasure in the movement of the Will toward the True, in the movement from the formless anarchy of freedom toward the contained genius of Form, from the temporal to the eternal, and in all such diversions by which the categorical imperative might find the beginnings of its inescapable moral compulsion. However, we see that Kant is simply enumerating the movement of Eros in several assumed guises and echoing Franz von Baader's identification of the procreative drive with the emergence of the drive to knowledge such that, just as the instinctive movement of Eros toward its object falls to the psychoanalytic critique as merely a denial of Thanatos, or its own incomprehensible ground, we find in the Kantian conceptualization of the Beautiful only a kind of philosophizing repetition of the very same unconscious forces we had deigned to explicate in taking up the question of Reason's tentative independence from the psychical reality of human life, from history and language, etc., and certainly nothing of their resolution or annulment,- an order of abstract knowledge that further entrenches the 'transcendental illusion' opposing the Intellect to a modality of sensation that is at the same time concealed in Nature's play of shadows by a veiled apprehension that requires the Intellect to consolidate and bind multiplicity into unity so as to render clear what Nature herself cannot, namely the Pleasure by which the imperative is secured, the heart of the creative impulse animating her entire multitude and excess, (the Plotinian prohodos) thereby paradoxically reinstating the metaphysical gambit in a disclosure of meaning whose limit is once again lost upon the threshold of articulation to the 'transcendental illusion', to the inexorable call of the inaugural One and unity of Spirit,- a threshold like that revealed by the approach of death or madness at the nebulous periphery of our thinking which, paraphrasing Saitya B. Das, in "Political Theology of Schelling", instead of 'signifying the cessation of life and thought occurring at the end of their possibility', rather opens up life and thought to the space of 'the unconditional which defines the tragic condition of mortals as mortals' by the imposition of an "ineluctable law of necessity" which is also Thought's very freedom, the 'uber etwas hinaus wherein the immeasurable abyss of freedom is furtively glimpsed' in the "eternity of the transient" (or still better formulated, the 'eternity of the Beginning', that is, the radical ceaseless interruption of finitude that draws forth all that has not become immanent to itself and ensures the infinite multiplicity and generativity of Nature in Time; see Wirth, "Schelling's Practice of the Wild"; Extinction, P. 19.) that "suspends the sacrificial foundation" of philosophy through the derivation of a Love whose desire is not lack, but rather a mobilization of the lack intrinsic to the subject's own nullity against the fixity of repression and the constraint of the egoic self,- a threshold that returns us to ourselves by exhausting the Form into which Thought has poured itself to learn thereby the measure of its own potency,- (by way of Depontenzierung) a threshold that, as Werner Beierwaltes elaborates concerning Plotinus and Proclus' metaphysics of the One, "presupposes the self-unfolding of the Spirit just as it preserves and annuls it", introducing a "degree of mediation to the unity of the Spirit", (Note Tritten, in "Beyond Presence", P. 49. Spirit cannot be an absolute self-mediation and simultaneously acknowledge its own content as Reason, providing no means by which to comprehend the actuality of existence within the self-positing ideality of Schelling's negative philosophy.) "for that unity remains conscious of the differentiation of the manifold eide (Forms) through the mediating prohodos even when that differentiation is annulled", evincing the "reflexivity of the origin that persists within itself, the origin that is reintegrated with itself after enduring the self-unfolding but that still contains within itself the multiplicity and diversity constituted by the prohodos",- a threshold by which Beauty is herself split, through chorismos and methexis, (Pugh, "Logic and Metaphysics; Dialectic of Love: Platonism in Schiller's Aesthetics.", P. 93.) into her antithesis in the Sublime, calling into question the autonomy of the aesthetic faculty, and therefor, the independence of Reason from the 'Naturzwecke' (nature's reasons) and 'Naturstaat' (state of nature) by implying a doubled teleology in which the ends of man, being the perfection of Reason, and the ends of Nature, being the perfection of aesthetic form (Beauty) in the development of organic life, whose pinnacle was reached in the human body, must be somehow conjoined in the ends of the one Good, which would fulfill them both,- something that would seem to require a 'new mythology' as 'a discursive correlative of the intellektuale Anschauung', (Balfour, in "The Rhetoric of Romantic Prophecy; Holderlin's Moment of Truth".) that is, a new 'category' of the mind capable of uniting the sensible with the intelligible and so balancing the disparate fields of theology, myth, history, physics, art, philosophy, and religion, within a singular aim, and for whose production the later, more radical Schelling, turns to art itself, with the production of the art-work standing as just such an all-encompassing category. The promulgators and enthusiasts of late German idealism, accordingly, made no firmer progress in overcoming Kant and repudiating the encroachments of Totality than did the Romantics make progress in silencing the rationalism of their forbears in the boundlessness of Nature and the 'Infinity' of Sehnsucht, for whom the Beautiful becomes what Schiller conceives of as a zero-condition between freedom and form, sense and reason, the 'singularity of ethical truth' and the 'multiplicity of natural event',- (George Kelly, "Hegel's Retreat from Eleusis: Studies in Political Thought".) "a principle that is simultaneously the root of reality and ideality" (See Manfred Frank, "Schiller's Aesthetics between Kant and Schelling".) within whose dialectical extremity the True and the Good share one flesh, through which alone we could make comprehensible, in keeping with the more general system of transcendental idealism, "the formulation that reason encounters itself in the other of reason"; the "absolute identity of the real and ideal, of nature and spirit", standing as the "necessary presupposition of both relations and their play of oppositions", and through which alone the Kantian imperative could be dispensed with through the consummating act of Reason,- a supreme act by which the philosopher, equaling the aesthetic force of the poets, both asserts the absolute identity and independence of the rational faculty, subverting the primacy of the Good, and extends the intellection of this faculty across the entire unity of the Ideas, bolstering Beauty as a kind of inductress of human nature and returning us, through this final unification, to Totality. As to the second point raised here concerning the independence of man's rational faculty, ... ]

And then my notes on the impossibility of asserting Reason's independence as a faculty due to it being conjoined with language.
Last edited by Parodites on Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Meno_ » Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:32 am

Exactly all the above per primitive logical realism (positivism) of Jesus perhaps apprehended through a coming cloud ..


Therefore rescuing the particular through the sensible is impossible, given the. as the duper sensibility of ideals are not reflected in the logical realism of the positive sources of it's reassertion. ( words can only reformulate ideas, in essence(through nominal logic of abstracted exclusion) and not as constructed through gradual schematics of construction.
A deconstruction happens at critical times of schematic lapse between gradations that cease to overlap to form the ideas necessary to form sufficient meaning 'families of similarity.

Exclusion of the connectives, between ideas of sufficient similarity, once broken, devalue the paradigm ( ideal) from various series of adjoining patterns, whereon all surrounding families break down.

The paradigm particularity of the excluded middle is deconstructed as a negation of it's pyramidal summit, therefore it can be configured as an inverted pyramid.

The two pyramids conjoined forms the star figured hexagram which is the essence sequence. of approach to saving it so the paradigm nature can be imbued with gnosis.

So Jesus'' Conscience can be saved as If ItsElf can save.

ID
With His back to the wall on wither side, cross fixed and not reflected except through Him, in order to allow the Light to shone trough
They certainly did not know of what they were saying

The inverse image strengthened by post enlightenement reformation, painted a different moral picture. But that did not negate the loves of humanity albeit with stark brush strokes.

It's so easy or easier to become human oh, so human.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13281
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rescuing the Particular

Postby Ichthus77 » Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:37 pm

Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6077
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users