Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Duality

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    Hi Mederic, I have found a quote in which SK plays around with the C/Anti-C pair. What you have said echoes the impression I get of that pair of clowns. I get
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 17, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Mederic, I have found a quote in which SK plays around with the
      C/Anti-C pair. What you have said echoes the impression I get of that
      pair of clowns. I get a distinct picture of the disjunction itself in
      what SK has Anti-C saying. That is not to say that it is there, but
      that I can see it in those words. Please feel free to shred my saying
      as you say fit. I'll call it a hypothesis to make such shredding
      easier to accomplish.

      Rather than take up much space here, I just put that quote in my SK
      quote bin. It is located under Hannay's P&J and quotes pp. 348-49. My
      Yahoo profile has the site reference. The reference seems not to be
      working today, but that has happened before. If it stays down any
      length of time, I'll post the quote here as a separate post. Here is
      the last paragraph.

      "We do not really exist, but the person who comes to be a true
      Christian and in simplicity will be able, as the sailor of the twins
      by which he steers, to tell of us two brothers – the opposites. And as
      the sailor tells of the fantastic things he has seen, so also the
      person who becomes a true Christian plainly and in simplicity will be
      able to recount the fantastic things he has seen. The may perhaps lie
      in what he tells – this will not be the case with what the true
      Christian tells of us, for it is true that we two brothers are
      fantastic figures, but it is also true that he has seen us."

      Hypothesis: There is a transition, a leap, a /Gestalt/ shift, if you
      will. Since it is a movement from the 'sensuous-psychic' to the
      'spiritual' it will not really fit into the terms needed to describe
      the transition, i.e., a before and an after. In a sense C represents
      the before and Anti_C represents the after, yet, as they are a
      disjunctive pair, there is no between for them to meet in; in other
      words, there is no place for a synthesis to occur. So, they are
      nothing but markers of an absolute disjunction that brings that
      disjunction into the ken of the discursive mind. If the transition has
      been appropriated, those two are visible to the understanding. The
      disjunction has legs, so to speak. We could even say that there is an
      understanding to the second power, where the separation between the
      first and second powers is seen as an absolute disjunction. willy
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.