Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 07:33:11 -0400
From: gonsalv-AT-odyssee.net (Ronald Gonsalves)
Subject: fuck theology


Dear domenic, your last post gave conclusive proof you do not understand
n/or wish to engage with a viable conception of the Unc. Freud, Lacan, D&G,
anything, just let's have some textual work puleeze...f'r instance the unc.
is not Kant's thing-in-itself. Kant's Das Ding is, however, re-defined on
pages 43 to 70 of Jack's seminar of 1959-60...but it's obvious you don't
care to define your terms except one term God God God like a Goddamn broken
record. Needless to say no re-definition of God will get done unless you
follow the credo "absit nomen", cuz the TERM God is so prostituted, so
exhausted, means so many hetero-things to so many different people etc., but
such a project would employ real textual work rather than skipping CD
players...everything is God there is no outside of dead thought, no possible
exteriority to the Phallus-Logos: "the voice that speaks from on high"
Get serious! (better yet begin to play like Heraclitoris' God = pyr aizoon) 

as for this ad hominem quibble:

"That's why your head almost exploded once a little theological idea 
got into it, prompting all this touching concern for your blood-chemistry
and a general questioning of your ability to contain your thoughts within in
[?] your subject" 

You mean your Subject (unbarred o'course, but you seem to think barred means
"orthodox theology" or "mediated" or, saddest of all, "mediated by orthodox
theology")--that is, once again, God God GOD (isn't this what D&G mean by
"redundancy", a redundancy of the proper name leading into the black hole of
subjectification and subjection?) as anterior to and devoid of  history,
metaphorics, temporality, politics, etc.: Under-writer of your little
subject just as in Descartes' fairy tale



Anyhow, you are the one that is reterritorializing on your blood-chemistry
(anyways how do you know what my blood-chemistry is? you're not trusting a
proper name are you--which one?--or are you just proving you have no clue
about Derrida's critique of the proper?). You obviously have no interest in
becoming-nomadic, or in following Holderlin's dictum that we can only find
what is proper to ourselves (Hesperia he called it) by going out of
ourselves into the other (Asia he did dub it). So stick with catechism, old
ikons and battered books 

je m'en fou!!!

Also: cheap east-west distinctions will definitely no longer do
Good old solid Yeats thought Christianity was an "Asiatic" importation fer
Chrissakes

On this end, just to clarify what I have been repeating endlessly, I am
neither here nor there (if you can define where East and West are these days
I'll give you a silver dollar) In-between as D&G might say. Love'em
christian gods, hindu gods, pagan gods (kant stand those sedentary,
de-somaticized ones tho')

Once you forget the idolatry of the concept as a limiting State of Things
you can become, as the Crucified said (almost), "all the metaphors in history"
you were singing the glory of becomings were you not?
i mean but you have read Capitalism and Schizophrenia no?

"It is a question of something quite different: identifying races, cultures
and gods with fields of intensity on the body [without organs...here we see
a sick result of gnostic-artaud getting it on with spinoza: the monstrous
idealist phantasm of the BwO], identifying personages with states that fill
these fields and with effects that fulgurate within and traverse these
fields." (ao 86)

in other words you're welcome to RT on sunday school but it's kinda boring,
doncha think?
beware the black hole of the Cogito!

and once and for all please answer the question about totalizing directly: 

do you or do you not totalize away the violence and slaughter-the
hetero-differences-that the lived reality of God has produced--that is,
totalize in the (proper) name of the Same God?"

God is Not (a concept)...but let's not get redundant

Answer carefully for people--at this very moment--are killing and exploding
each other over disagreements about their hetero-geneous ways of
imagining-living-politicizing God. Wages of Sin? Perhaps they just need a
good rationalist to come and talk to them, to say: listen brothers and
sisters, it's really just one God, Spinoza's; and what's more Deleuze said
this. I am certain, nay Sartin, their Unc. drives, their libidinal
fixations, their paranoiac fascisms would rise up as ONE and salaam before
any such queen of the sciences

ciao

rojan kush