In the House of the Hangman 1022

“Da-dah-da-dunt!”, as I just heard Tom Beckett say. So: This book is fucked. What the fuck is it? It's the combination of an exercise in hyperstition j withkdkdkdkfoewpwmsvs psdoadvmdavmkvsewgNISVDNKLSVDN the narrative of my own desire and obsessions and desperate need for architecture and dead gods and floating and the beach and the ocean and pain and terror and desperation itself. It's my desperate need for desperation. It’s my love letter to the void. I mean, everything is. It’s my love letter to the impossible. It’s a love letter to Georges Bataille and Alain Robbe-Grillet and every work of art that’s ever made me want to die in pure white light. It’s a collection of 12 — initially it was 13, but I decided the 13th should be absent as a sort of conceptual move, as Nick Land says, “zero is immense” — texts. I mean, I’s, obsessive human person body meats. Mumbo- ... ... two pigs per day I thought I heard him say. And I’m drinking sanskrit. A massless particle passes through the void with no resistance. Ask it what it means to pass through the void. Ask how it differs from not passing. “When you know that a child is being sold every minute in the sex industry, you can’t un-know that.” Affect arises in the midst of in-between-ness: in the capacities to act and be acted upon. Affect is an impingement or extrusion of a momentary or sometimes more sustained state of relation as well as the passage (and the duration of passage) of forces or intensities. That is, affect is found in those intensities that pass body to body (human, nonhuman, part-body, and otherwise), in those resonances that circulate about, between, and sometimes stick to bodies and worlds, and in the very passage or variations between these intensities and resonances. Sing to the junk DNA >click start >click run [multiple user content] nkkjoi vtvdtynhugyvfbtdrcbhmkkk. This is [or is not] the language of metaphor, and a very strange language it is. First we need some contrasting data to show that we are in the realm of epistemology with a small e. (If you would seek for an absolute Epistemology among the metaphors, you must go one or perhaps two stones higher-- straight on and up the stairs ...) In Bali, when a shaman, or balian, goes into a state of altered consciousness, he or she speaks with the voice of a god, using the pronouns appropriate to the god, and so on. And when this voice addresses ordinary adult mortals, it will call them “Papa” or “Mama.” For the Balinese think of the relationship between gods and people as between children and parents, and in this relationship it is the gods who are the children and the people who are the parents. The Balinese do not expect their gods to be responsible. They do not feel cheated when the gods are capricious. Indeed, they enjoy minor caprice and charm as these are exhibited by gods temporarily incarnate in shamans. How unlike our dear Job! This particular metaphor, then, between fatherhood and godhead, is by no means eternal or universal. In other words, the “logic” of metaphor is something very different from the logic of the verities of Augustine and Pythagoras. Not, you understand, “wrong,” but totally different. [It may be, however, that while particular metaphors are local, the process of making metaphor has some wider significance -- may indeed be a basic characteristic of Creatura.] Let me point up the contrast between the truths of metaphor and the truths that the mathematicians pursue by a rather violent and inappropriate trick. Let me spell out metaphor into syllogistic form: Classical logic named several varieties of syllogism, of which the best known is the “syllogism in Barbara.” It goes like this: Men die; Socrates is a man; Socrates will die. The basic structure of this little monster -- its skeleton -- is built upon classification. The predicate (“will die”) is attached to Socrates by identifying him as a member of a class whose members share that predicate. The syllogisms of metaphor are quite different, and go like this: Grass dies; Men die; Men are grass. [In order to talk about this kind of syllogism and compare it to the “syllogism in Barbara,” we can nickname it the “syllogism in grass.”]

[Note: Sources: Tom Beckett, “Amy’s Blues”, at l’amour fou, 18 Jul 012; JBR; Blake Butler, and M Kitchell, as quoted in Butler’s “Masturbating Over Ghosts”, at Vice, 19 Dec 012; JBR (the former is some mad typing just to get the computer screen to come back on); Del Ray Cross, “mdclxxxvi”, at Anachronizms, 18 Jul 012; Rae Armantrout, “Chirality”, as seen at wood s lot, 18 Jul 012; Alexa Pham, as quoted in Julia Gazdag, “WWTDG: ALEXA PHAM”, at Hello Giggles, 18 Jul 012; Gregory Seigworth and Melissa Gregg, “Introduction” to The Affect Theory Reader, as quoted in Christopher Higgs, “We Are All Coeval”, at HTMLGIANT, 18 Jul 012; SDaniel O’Donnell-Smith, “:::”, “hold his hand before he fades away”, “one thought galore”, in <c>Odes; JBR, (more mad typing/CPR to get the screen to come out of its coma); Gregory Bateson, Mind and Nature, at Oikos, via Guy Taylor, on Facebook (thanks, Guy!)]

Comments

[Saif]

Both. He was 100% Human and 100% God. He had to be 100% both or else his death had no applicable scgiifinance. He had to be 100% human or else his death would not have been able to be substitutionary for our humanly sin. Also, he had to be 100% God or else he wouldn't have been able to live a sinless life and his death would have only been the punishment for his own transgressions, and would have no applicable scgiifinance.The sacrifices in the OT were a setting up of the Law to show that sin had consequences and to state that blood must be shed in order to cover sin. Jesus was compared to a lamb to give reference to people who were familiar to the Law to show that he would be a similar sacrifice. Only, the Law required mulitple sacrifices every year in order for sin to be covered. With Jesus, his sacrifice was once for the believer's sin, past, present and future. The animal sacrifices were inadequate at best, but the sacrifice of the God Man proved more than sufficient. In his death he paid for our sin (putting an end to the Law and it's sacrifices) so that through transforming faith alone would we be forgiven, and in his resurrection he proved he was more powerful than our inadequacies.