One on one
With greater emphasis than usual heard my expression of delight with greater complacency but our intimacy was no much advanced by his talking me on his back to carry me alone in a diplomacy carpentry monologue --- wich was a polite fiction on my side greatly improved in from appearance to the real hospitable manner but so rubicund it seemed to me and the most delicious retreat I think for my conceive manner trying now to recollect old mummy schemes of telling dirty cards and nuclear terminal impressions ---- I felt the difficulty of resuming the subject in the privacy of little one on one room hurriedly and secretly and greatly resembled in face and voice ---- was sorry to see me standing in the room so scared and strange without being actively concerned in any treat but I was timidly followed to the hipocritical outside thinking "If I have an obstinate dog war to deal with and turning a darkening face and dismissed with a nod and smile or tell : " the most right to expect it to be as agreeable as possible " and pressed all voices from me with my hand and thought " how can we reconcile it to our conscience " and soon he took me by same hand and no ceased to draw back or the same thing in extenuation of the circumstance and always with the tenderest comiseration ---- continue in one minute
DIALOGUE BETWEEN FLYERS
ResponderExcluir--- You prefer to deny, you affirm nothing, you are fundamentally a nihilist or an obscurantist, that's not how you will progress!
--- You abuse an easy technique; you simply repeat: "X is not this, any more than it is that," "X seems to exceed all discourse or all preaching," etc. That amounts to talking to say nothing. You talk only for the sake of talking, to experience speaking. Or, more seriously, you talk this way with a view to writing, since you write, then you don't even deserve to be spoken.
ResponderExcluir--- In terms of a kind of quasi-tautology, this is not simply speaking in vain and not deciding anything. You might want to experience a possibility of speaking that the objector even really has to assume at the moment when he directs his criticism in this way. Talking to (not) decide anything is not talking. Above all, don't talk to Nada
ResponderExcluir--- Suspicion takes on a form here that can reverse the process of accusation: if it is not merely sterile, repetitive, obscurantist, mechanical. From the moment a proposition takes a negative form, it is enough to take the negativity thus announced there to its limit!
---- Positive Preaching (if there is a work of negativity in discourse and preaching, that work would produce divinity. A change of sign would then suffice (or rather, to demonstrate, something quite easy and classic, that this inversion has always taken place, which is the very necessity of thought) to say that divinity is not produced here but is productive. Infinitely productive (i must indefinitely postpone the encounter with its own limit (strange, heterogeneous, in any case irreducible to the intuitive telos
ResponderExcluir---- Judgment in general, for every policy of censorship, every critique of censorship, is a critique of judgment. Censorship is a judgment; it presupposes a tribunal, laws, a code. Since we are speaking of reason and censorship, we could easily bring to light the chain that links ratio with cuenta, calculation, censorship: censere means to deem, count, compute. The "census," the "census," is the enumeration of citizens (registration) and the evaluation of their fortune by the censors. But let us leave this chain there, however necessary and significant it may be. Kant intends to legitimize a reason of state as censorious reason, which is supposed to have the right to censor under certain conditions and within certain limits. But he also wants to remove pure reason itself from all censorious power. It should, in all fairness, exercise no censorship and escape all censorship.
ResponderExcluir---- Two observations before going any further. Both concern this fact or this principle, this main fact: there is no censorship without reason. What does this mean? First observation: there is no censorship without reason (and without a given reason), since censorship never occurs as a brutal and silent repression that itself reduces to silence what a dominant force has no interest in allowing to be said, uttered, or propagated. In the strict sense that Kant seeks to delimit, censorship certainly uses force, and against a discourse, but always in the name of another discourse, according to legal procedures that presuppose a right and institutions, experts, powers, public acts, a government, and reasons of state.
ResponderExcluir---- When Freud resorts to what we might call, somewhat hastily, the "metaphor" of censorship to describe the operation of inhibition, this figure is merely a figure insofar as psychic "censorship" does not, like censorship in the strict and literal sense, pass through the public channels of institutions and the State, even though the latter may play a phantasmatic role on the scene. But, on the other hand, this figure is a "good" figure insofar as it appeals to a principle of order, to the reason of a central organization, with its discourses, its expert-guardians, and, above all, its representatives.
ResponderExcluir----- They already existed, and were already so complex in Kant's time, that their silence in this regard merited analysis. But today, this overpowering defies all our instruments of analysis. It should mobilize numerous systems of deciphering, targeting sites as diverse and differently structured as the laws of capital, the language system, the school system, its norms and procedures of control or reproduction, technologies, particularly those of information, all policies, particularly those of culture and the media (in the private and public spheres), publishing structures, and, finally, all institutions, including those of "physical and mental" health—without forgetting to interweave all these systems, and the subjects inscribed within them or produced, with the overdetermined complexity of their biopsychic, idiosyncratic, and other functioning.
ResponderExcluir----- In Colin Wilson's work, "Parasites of the Mind," the protagonist discovers that human consciousness has been enslaved, subjugated, and intimidated by a strange parasite that has been feeding off it and draining its energy for centuries. In Gnostic cosmology, mention is made of the Archons, a species of inorganic beings that emerged in the Solar System before the formation of the Earth. They are an alien force that subliminally invades the human mind and diverts our intelligence away from its proper and healthy uses.
ResponderExcluir----- They can affect our minds through subliminal conditioning techniques. Their main tactics are mental errors (intellectual viruses, or false ideologies, especially religious doctrines) and simulation. Archons are predators, distinct from a wide range of non-humans and other-dimensional beings also known to Gnostics, beings who are benevolent or neutral toward humanity.
ResponderExcluir-----
ResponderExcluirI thank you for Holzwege. I read what you wrote about Nietzsche, the era of world images, and Rilke. I think I see at least a little clearer what I could ask you. Surprising coincidences in detail and perplexity, perceptible to me from a great distance in the work as a whole, stirred me as I read. When I got irritated, you told me that two things I must not forget: this is about Holzwege and it is about the preparation of preparations. You reveal yourself in this book at your former level. The book captured my attention more than your previous writings. What, however, your true intention is, I would not be able to say.
----- Here is indeed someone who has faced the Lost Paths, thinking along with them. I would like a thorough critique from you. You write, at the end, in the last paragraph: "you do not envision this possibility (of dialogue between flyers)." You are right, to the extent that I remain silent about it. But, a few weeks ago, I spoke about this dialogue to young students (more privately) as I envision it. I had precisely the dialogue you refer to in mind there. But, for this dialogue, the fundamental prerequisite is that the psychic shadows are willing to question themselves. This can only happen through the fact that they, through their own work, starting from the thing, encounter what is inescapable in the thing!
ResponderExcluir----- Keeping the unavoidable as the inaccessible, this is the experience of essential limitation. Keeping the unavoidable as the inaccessible, this is the experience of the essential limitation. Recognizing the limit as a limit, this is the authentic limitation. It is the foundation of the first sense of inevitable specialization.
ResponderExcluir----- Conclusion. This place is a dangerous place for children who want to imitate Jesus Christ. It corresponds exactly to tribal marketing:
ResponderExcluirchiefs and laws that leave no possible clue for individuality and creativity, mandatory friendship, respect for rules, sentimentality...; the whole of the human form.