and a kind of changing same, or stasisheterosex conjoins complementary parts to (ideally) reproduce the similar; homosex solders opposites for the sheer production of its own bonds
"I hear your suitor coming. I don't know anymore what to say to make him leave forever. He does not have the means, my daughter. And what would he have said, your father? I will speak to him. He will understand that I do not love him anymore. He will never believe it. He will guess from my glance, or from my breath. So much time to embody the solitude of paradise, and so many efforts to capture the purity of this boredom. How my carcass would have yawned, if so many things had not interfered! Such a life, such a life. Look! Again? My God, just how long is this going to last? Patience: everything begins again. There are days when I tell myself childhood must be like this - to live, and relive, in spite of outrageous fortune. Patience, mother. Patience daughter. Everything begins again. Nous somme ici, nous somme ici. Nous somme ici, nous somme ici..."and a kind of changing same, or stasis
In the case of Judaism, the faith system would seem to have those letters of the name of God integrated into the system of gematria, perhaps with the numeral values - of the characters the name, and of the characters of the syncopated name - carry some significance, derived from the infinity organ of the system, the place too hallowed for the map to cover, or even try to cover
Do you think it works well with western science today? The being being a biological system?
The being studied as a system, yes, but still to keep the ideas distinct from their unnamable stimuli, our worlds - if that preconscious state is what is assumed to be more essential.
@thirdform Any similarity here to the distinction between sharia and fiqh? I assume those are general terms employed across Islam, and I assume you would know more about this than I, regardless of whether they touch you or not.
(edit: assumptions can be wrong, of course.)
I struggle to think of a similar distinction in Christianity, but I get a similar vibe from Judaism and what I take to be its reverent avoidance of the name of God. Keeping some heart of the faith system preserved from the interference of interpretation, a way of working an unmappable zone into the map, and often sufficing to account for infinity
In his criticism of Feuerbach, who he nevertheless considers to be the most serious of the “young Hegelians”, Marx notes that Feuerbach is the only one who actually manages to handle the master’s dialectics and his negation of negation; but he criticises teacher and student alike, because their purely abstract studies are based only on the overcoming of religion through (speculative) philosophy, only to end up again with the sublation of philosophy and the restoration of religion and theology. Historically, this means that the atheism of the emerging bourgeois class concludes its parable with a new victory of the religious: in 1844 one called oneself an atheist without fear, today no author dares to do so any more.
Feuerbach here, as Marx explains, follows Hegel: The latter is therefore responsible for the infertility of the bourgeois-critical method. Marx says on this point, while setting up a scheme that unfortunately will soon be interrupted: “Let us take a look at Hegel’s system. We must begin with his Phenomenology, which is the true birthplace and secret of the Hegelian philosophy.” The scheme works like this: “Phenomenology. A. Self-consciousness 1. Consciousness. […] 2. Self-consciousness. The truth of certainty of oneself.” We do not need to repeat the schematic and hard-to-digest development here. It becomes clear: For Marx, Hegel’s mistake is to place his enormous speculative construction on a strictly formal, i. e. abstract basis, that of “consciousness”. And as Marx will say so many times, one must proceed from being, not from the consciousness that the I has of itself. From the very beginning, Hegel is in the cage of the hollow dialogue between subject and object. His subject is the I, understood in the absolute sense, and his object, the first object, is for him the “certainty of its self”, as it is also called in other places. “Hegel commits a double error”, which “appears most clearly in the Phenomenology, which is the birthplace of Hegelian philosophy”.
As can be seen from all the meaningful and dense passages, Hegel’s mistake is to start from the thinking subject, the mind that thinks. In the afterword mentioned above, Marx speaks of inverting the Hegelian dialectic, which is upside down. Finally, all bourgeois thinkers who put the historical act of the capitalist class into words succumb to the same mistake. Their I, their human being, their subject, in which they find one and the same absolute expressed, are only a fleeting peculiarity of the bourgeois human being.
one of the reasons marxist ben watson is so angry with delezue and guatarri (delouse and gut-theory) is that he says by destroying the dialectic they invented the transexual