Some ruminations from the FB IPS discussion on religious monism/pluralism.
From
another angle, it seems that our categories can be too rigid and hence
one of them can become a dominant hegemony, e.g. scientific materialism.
Or the one true Buddhism that transcends and includes the others. Hence
the need for transcorporal hybridization,
which allows some overlapping and serves to check and balance
categories with each other. And yet each category maintains its autonomy
amidst all its relations. Indeed this can be analogous to image schema,
the most basic of our embodied categories and from which the more
abstract ones spring. Which of course, to put it in those terms, are
about very basic distinctions/connections like in/out, one/many. Those
basic categories, while a dual pairing, are still distinctly autonomous
in a singularly decomposable differentiation.
I
suggest the metaparadigm comes in per Faber's boundary line or slash
(/) which he calls 'in/difference.' It's not by accident that enclosed
in parentheses like that it looks like a vagina with a wry smile. My gal
Khora gets around. And has been compared to a nurturing nursing station
between the Intelligible and the Sensible. (As are image schema, by the
way.) To put it in 'religious' terms, I worship her and the Ground she
in/habits. Let us pray in her name, a(wo)men.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.