Tuesday, June 17, 2014


Continuing the post on the X factor, I was re-reading some of my prior IPS posts and will re-post some of them below on this infamous X. Again I warn: it's egghead stuff. From this post and following:

Quoting Keller on Faber: “When he collates differance with divinity […] this difference signifies a self-deconstructing otherness. Yet is does not destroy rationality, or even the categorical scheme. […] Faber in this way continues the Whiteheadian struggle to capture in language a difference between God and the world, or one and the other, without reinscribing the settled boundary between them—or erasing their difference. This differential nondualism [...] translates for him into 'God's in/difference.' One must not lose that inaudible slash, else 'in/difference' will be confused with the chilling apatheia. […] Thus 'this negative assertion paradoxically requires that because God is indeed nothing beyond all differences, God thus appears only in differences.' […] Faber's divine in/difference morphs into difference itself, the difference so radical as to be comprised by the 'essential relationality' of all differences” (190).

From Faber's chapter he notes that what is necessary “after the ecological death of God [is] the mystical move of becoming-animal, becoming multiplicity. This unio mystica […] [is] the consummation of all unity into the realm of multiplicity. […] It is the khoric realm of a paradox where we have to go through divergences, bifurcations, and antinomies all at once. […] In this mystical in/difference, everything is only in difference” (227-28).

I'm making some associations from the Faber quote that I don't think he makes, but not sure since I don't have access to the whole chapter. In keeping with the theme of this thread I find the expression 'becoming animal' interesting. It is associated with the kinds of folds I've been discussing, like folding back 'down' into our animal base awareness with our human capacity for detached observation, which creates states of 'unio mystica.' And upon reentering so-called gross egoic consciousness this can lead to the kind of ontological notions of paradoxical, nondual and postmetaphysical khora. I say 'can lead' but it doesn't necessarily do so, since without the proper frame(s) (right view) many often interpret such states metaphysically or dualistically.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.