Æ am a/the word. And a/the word is not only, but also, glad/ly.
The recounting or slight reprise of several (re)countings falls to me.
Í endeavor to do my best on this, your sojourn.
But(t < giggle >), í am a Fool, a bit of a cad. And proud of my wide-eyed wonder.
Please, bear in mind that what is “down for me is up.”
What the sisters did in this sphere marks history. Of course, time perpetually does this to history, so long as there is one conscious, sapient, vantage point to see it.
Cassandra and Echo. Aphrodite ruled Cassandra.
Cassandra knew it not until she reawoke from her latest dream.
Unselfishness went far. Embracing laughter and not war did too. Now, such names reach above and below.
There is a beautiful naked woman symbolizing this sphere, allegedly it is she.
Failure, futility, debauch and valour. Her titles and attributes.
One who loves roses as well as the name of the rose.
She sometimes takes the form of the íynx.
Has the power of beauty triumphant. The meaning of this is not to be taken for obvious and it will become clearer in your imagination as we progress.
She took but two weapons. One was no more than a long bit of cord. Her girdle. Atypical. Her lamp. She carries her own. While she loves to sing the Song of the Goddess, she has yet to accept Shakti theology officially.
Amusing given her role. But then again, she is a fool.
Of course, Rādāh took most of the heat.
~ But, now í get ahead of what passes for my mind these days.
Your merry narrator has an acadæmic background. Outside.
An able learner keened up into a gifted child. The tradition of empiricism, many empiricists think, has become a large collective comprised in majority by a bunch of pretentious prognosticators. You may add my name to the list. I would not deny it.
We do have a methodology to which we may aspire; although í’m not sure we understand it anymore.
Any work undertaken is going to address a research question. This general question will lead us to our object of inquiry. From there, we may begin our study by commencing with research.
Let us consider our object of inquiry here to be of Landgrave tradition.
This endeavor, like all forms of writing, will be an imagined experience. One that we shall undertake together.
Í will address conceptual and practical problems.
Practical problems predominately belong in the professional spheres. They address states of affairs in the world that are found troublesome. Much like a lazy eye, this perspective will ultimately depend on whom you ask: what is the “real” problem?
Sex, love, gender, women’s rights, men’s desires. These are not problems as much as potentially and periodically problematic. The difference akin to someone who likes the soup hot but not spicy. Modernity shuffles the deck of sex, gender roles, discrimination time and again; and these term fly like spaghetti towards the wall.
And yeah, it sticks. The pasta is done. While a new bot boils already. Periodicity. Embrace dont fear.
Conceptual problems tend to the acadæmic spheres, as they often have the luxury of not solving any real problem, but rather simply pointing out that what people currently think is wrong. Undexterous. Or else, they may point out some other version of not knowing [sic. differentiated from not-knowing].
While there may be no tangible cost to this type of problem there is a consequence: a particular kind of ignorance: a particular lack of understanding that keeps us from realizing something else that is even more significant.
My conceptual problem will address the problematic notion we refer to as Cartesian Dualism. To put it nicely. But we will consider the present social bifurcation existing between sexuality (pleasure, sensualism, hedonism) and spirituality aka soul power.
We will also review the practical problems of the politicization of love. Our concept of love and souls and spirit tethered itself to new stakes of symbology with the birth of nations. Questions of individual efficacy and empowerment. Evidence nature is not foisted by self organization, but birthed by it.
Perhaps nature dealt us the recurrent self organization that becomes Parcigal et al.
No 0ne knows.
Thank you Costica Bradatan and John Gray.
Interesting piece very relevant to the cultural elephant in the room (at least in America). This elephant also relates to the popular perception that a scientific and a religous belief perspective are mutually exclusive.
Lots to unpack but highlights include:
“[Grey] uses paradox not just for rhetorical effect but to a philosophical end.”
<thank you. rhetoric abounds already.>
Voltaire and Nietzeche, as perceived atheists, are rexamined.
“no such thing as secularism”
The idea that religion is born from a fundamental need to make meaning.
The author suggests religion is irreplacable in our meaning making process.
I propose extending this more broadly: culture is irreplacable and religion is a social structure of culture. This is consistent with the authors’ arguements.
While categorization is reductionist at times, the breakdown of ‘types’ of atheists is appropriate and beneficial to the big picture “layman” discussion.
“Atheist” and “scientist” have become confused as synonomous. “Atheist” is largely a stigma in many local American communities. If you believe this is irrelevant to the endeavor of science, please consider public school textbooks and science. Evolution is less frequently taught (in the South, at least), then cited as theory and then discredited.
Why? Because text book order demand stems from state boards of education.
Please check The Revisionaries, a documentary demonstratig this process.
An abstraction is made when something not capable of existing in isolation is thought of as in an isolated state. Consciousness is an abstraction. The concrete can be only the synthetic totality of which consciousness, like the phenomenon, constitutes only moments. Effecting a phenomenological reduction will not succeed in restoring the concrete (of consciousness) by the summation or organization of the elements which we abstracted from it. The relation of the regions of being is an original emergence and is a part of the very structure of these beings. “Is there any conduct which can reveal to me the relation of man with the world?”
We have established a parallelism between the types of conduct man adopts in the face of Being & Non-Being. We’re tempted to consider Being & Non-Being as two complimentary components of the real -like dark and light. Two contemporary notions which would somehow be united in the production of existents and which it would be useless to consider in isolation. Pure Being & pure Non-Being would be two abstractions which could be reunited only on the basis of concrete realities~There is nothing in heaven or on Earth which does not contain in itself Being & Non-Being,
Things in general “are”, but their being consists in manifesting their essence. Being passes into essence. One can express this by saying, ‘Being presupposes essence.’
Being is prior to nothingness and establishes the ground for it. Being has a logical precedence over nothingness and it is from Being that Nothingness derives its efficacy. Nothingness haunts Being. Nothingness can have only a borrowed existence. Non-Being exists only on the surface of Being.
*this is just Sartre’s opinion, yo. Dissent? Thoughts?
An abstraction is made when something not capable of existing in isolation is thought of as in an isolated state.
Consciousness is an abstraction.
The concrete can be only the synthetic totality of which consciousness, like the phenomenon, constitutes only moments. Effecting a phenomenological reduction will not succeed in restoring the concrete (of consciousness) by the summation or organization of the elements which we abstracted from it. The relation of the regions of being is an original emergence and is a part of the very structure of the beings.
“Is there any conduct which can reveal to me the relation not man with the world?”
We have established a Parallelism between the types of conduct man adopts in the face of Being and Non-Being. We’re tempted to consider being and non-being as two complementary components of the real: like dark and light.
Two contemporary notions which would somehow be united in the production of existents and which it would be useless to consider in isolation. Pure being and pure non-being would be two abstractions which could be reunited only on the basis of concrete realities.
There is nothing in heaven or on earth which does not contain in itself Being and Nothingness.
Dont own rights, but iggy owns rights to US punk verbe.
This has been reincarnated, to my limited experience, twice ( ala Michael Hutchence < of INXS, RIP > and the miraculous Deftones and MJK).
Listen to this track on great headphones and hear so much additional quintessence.