O TRANSCEND
A word to conjure. (“conjure, “another
word to conjure) which emerged in
yesterday’s dialectic (talking about talk).
My common sense sense of “transcend” is
“to rise-above” some situation where I am
other wise stuck in the middle, caught
between this and that—devilish details and
deep blue sees, say— rock and hard place,
Scylla and Charybdis
“transcendent,” above, beyond, is also posed against
(or in conjunction with) “immanent”:
often a sense of disconnect
& “beyond” on the one hand; and here-all-around, on
the other hand, a seeming (but also “real”) conflict of
interest in religious talk—“locating” god(s) for example,
in terms of beyond (ultra, Ultimate Thule), which is to
say “transcendent,”—as opposed to imagining an
immanent god:.Emmanuel: el present.
By inclination, are you Idealist?
Or Materialist?
Transcendentalist?
Or Empiricist?
You don’t like this either/or?
Suspect a faux dichotomy?
On the one hand: PATTERN
(Pa: patron, paternal, patriarchal
)
On the other hand: MATTER (Ma:
mater, maternal, material, matrix )
Faux dichotomy or not: can you FEEL the
opposition: a great divide, torn between 2
lovers: Eros & Pneuma; Ecos Divisus in
manners of speaking: Roderick, on the one
hand; Madeline, on the other: always ushering
in the ongoing fall of the house of US?
On which team do you choose to play?
PA or MA?
(Can’t play for both: no myn can serve
2 magisteries; need we argue?)
Transcendence
Immanence
Unless you think you can meta-transcend this double bind
without doing injustice to either? Or rather: do injustice to
both, of course—but not INJUSTICE to either.
“Above” and “Below” and “Beyond” make good sense
for making sense, but contaminate efforts to make
nonsense as well as to conjure no-sense-at-all
which of course is what “transcending” is all
about, true? .
A language problem: : problem in representation,
determined by my own terms, I am caught in the
muddle of my image-I-nation.
O transcend. O transform.
A word to conjure. (“conjure, “another
word to conjure) which emerged in
yesterday’s dialectic (talking about talk).
My common sense sense of “transcend” is
“to rise-above” some situation where I am
other wise stuck in the middle, caught
between this and that—devilish details and
deep blue sees, say— rock and hard place,
Scylla and Charybdis
“transcendent,” above, beyond, is also posed against
(or in conjunction with) “immanent”:
often a sense of disconnect
& “beyond” on the one hand; and here-all-around, on
the other hand, a seeming (but also “real”) conflict of
interest in religious talk—“locating” god(s) for example,
in terms of beyond (ultra, Ultimate Thule), which is to
say “transcendent,”—as opposed to imagining an
immanent god:.Emmanuel: el present.
By inclination, are you Idealist?
Or Materialist?
Transcendentalist?
Or Empiricist?
You don’t like this either/or?
Suspect a faux dichotomy?
On the one hand: PATTERN
(Pa: patron, paternal, patriarchal
) On the other hand: MATTER (Ma:
mater, maternal, material, matrix )
Faux dichotomy or not: can you FEEL the
opposition: a great divide, torn between 2
lovers: Eros & Pneuma; Ecos Divisus in
manners of speaking: Roderick, on the one
hand; Madeline, on the other: always ushering
in the ongoing fall of the house of US?
On which team do you choose to play?
PA or MA?
(Can’t play for both: no myn can serve
2 magisteries; need we argue?)
Transcendence
Immanence
Unless you think you can meta-transcend this double bind
without doing injustice to either? Or rather: do injustice to
both, of course—but not INJUSTICE to either.
“Above” and “Below” and “Beyond” make good sense
for making sense, but contaminate efforts to make
nonsense as well as to conjure no-sense-at-all
which of course is what “transcending” is all
about, true? .
A language problem: : problem in representation,
determined by my own terms, I am caught in the
muddle of my image-I-nation.
O transcend. O transform.
xxxooo, Sam.
No comments:
Post a Comment