File spoon-archives/bataille.archive/bataille_1999/bataille.9908, message 208


Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 08:53:34 -0700
From: "J. Foster" <borealis-AT-mail.wellsgray.net>
Subject: Re: Tao, paradox, heraclitus


David wirtes:

>But at the same time, just because a person is passionate about
>philosophy doesn't automatically mean he is passionate about Truth and on
>the path to enlightenment.    After all, Christian fundamentalists are
>passionate about philosophy too (or at least their own particular brand of
>it) and yet they are insane people who have no connection at all with the
>spiritual path.   

If this statement does not come from the heart, then I don't know what one
would. It is not okay to be passionate about philosophy, but it is okay to
be passionate about Truth. Well the irony is obvious. Passion and reason are
antimonies depending on your point of view. Is this a sign of reason? Not at
all. 

*In an earlier post David made some passionate statements about Christ and
Bhudda. Hale Folly for there is where the truth is found. Amen. 

*In this post David admits he has tried mysticism and had various
experiences, but because he is convinced they were not of a class with
reason, he rejected any meaning to them. I quess passion can be reasonable.
Poetics and passion, depending on the circumstances, are either reasonable
or irrational. I quess feeling and reason are equivalent ways of knowing the
self. Interesting....and enlightening in itself.

I have my own list as well. It is called forests. It is about forests in
general; it is for romantic mystics and cold as steel rationalists. Of
course only a person who is passionate in the first place would subscribe to
my list, so I quess that would rule out the rationalistic man or woman who
believes that Truth. [I get a kick out of the capitalization of truth. It
reminds me of the handouts of some sects, when every tenth word in a
sentence is capitalized. As if there is only one truth in the world. The
second folly I have noticed is the constant monopolization of the notion of
the concept of truth without any dialogue or explanation. As if truth just
sits there on a pedestal waiting to be discovered like some rather
archeological fact. Yes Truth as an artefact. Or there is a secret method of
which David's sect has the key to]

There is nothing more hilarious than to allude to the truth somewhere as
though it existed on every street corner while at the same time never
attempting to explain what constitutes truth. The basic 'truth' of reasoning
is simple. If there is a concept regarding what truth is then it must have
at least one predicate when it is referred to in a propositional sentence.
But so far I have not seen anything remotely similar to a proposition or a
predicative sentence. Therefore I regard most of David's sentences as
'passionate' and emotional, or rather succinct irrationalism.  I quess that
these kinds of statements are an example of the 'postmodern' anxiety of a
sense of powerlessness to be able to reason. There are various acts of the
mind. One of them is reasoning. To reason is to demonstrate via formal or
informal logic some understanding regarding the object of interest. In the
case of the topic Truth this is apparently lacking, except for a blazen
emotional outburst of joy and trembling, and incipient power. He calls his
statements dogmatic and doctrinaire. Well the jargon fists to a tee. Thus
spake spater sprachen ich bein sprachen die wissenshraften...unless ye
become as cows and chew the cud Ye shall not find the kingdom of Truth.
Indigestion sets in. The Truth has burrs and thistles all over it especially
the truth of Christ's death on the cross. At first he had a crown of thorns,
then he was dragged and beaten more, left with a crown of shit and blood,
his own. His body was left to rot and be consumed by insects like carrion in
a cave nearby. The Truth is that this young man died, he was 31 years old,
because he was making propositions about the kingdom of God, that the
kingdom of God is situated within. It is the grandest folly of all to make
statements about an aphophantic God, and to even claim that God was inside.
Like Tolstoy, he said the kingdom of God is within. His declarations were
anethema to the state. Thus he was murdered by the state, and Tolstoy was
expelled from his comfortable and sweet home. The kingdom of God is not
outside somewhere on the street corner like Truth. The truth is that kingdom
of god is nowhere outside, especially on the genius list. 

Was then is this truth that Truth is? Where in the statements on the Bhudda
and the Christ is there any positive statements of Truth at all that David
alludes to? There are only trailing statements about someone else on the
list, jibes, and more negative statements. Yes we know that we are all
different in some ways, yes we know that. But that is the obvious truth.
Ariosto has made attempts to bridge the seperateness of the ego oriented
world we live in to find community. What about you? 






   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005