Interbeing

Balder provided the following Faber quote from Theopoetic Folds, which has been the subject of recent posts:

"Eco-consciousness and eco-conscience have an ethical and a spiritual dimension. Both can be characterized as 'always beginning in the middle.' Deleuze formulates this new categoreal imperative of eco-ethics as letting 'your loves be like the wasp and the orchid' and, without beginning and end, as being 'always in the middle, between things, interbeing, intermezzo' (Deleuze/Guattari, Rhizome 17). To begin in the middle always means to follow multiplicities in their deconstructive complexity within and without, to unsettle the boundaries
and clear borders of forced identities, which are always imposed measures of the One with its power-installed abstractions of unification and division. To begin in the middle is an ethical category that activates us from the middle of the happening of multiplicities and asks us to always submerge into their middle, the many folds of connectivity within and beyond, which always form under the skin of powers of unification and division and only come to life within, across and beyond the boundaries of power. To become inter-being, we need to leave the high states of unity to become actors of the folds within unties between their moments of unifications, and between unities in the middle of their artificial isolation. To become 'in between' means to become intermezzo, that is, less than the abstract unifications that always feed the Anthropic Imperialism over nature, culture, and (human) Self. It means to become minor."

Which reminds me of this post on image schematic basic categories, following.


"So our basic categories are embodied in image schemas that arise from our interactions with the world. Recall that one characteristic of these basic categories is the part-whole gestalt, aka hierarchy. Since image schemas and basic categories operate below conscious attention we’ve come to assume that they are inherent to the world themselves and thus project this notion of 'natural hierarchy,' with its most developed forms in Aristotelian nested, categorical hierarchies. All of which assumes a basic, particular and inherent 'constituent' as foundation at the bottom and/or a general and inherent 'being' as foundation at the top. Meanwhile the process actually begins in the middle of the classical taxonomy and we get more specific 'downward' and more general 'upward' from there on a useful but constructed hierarchy."