Search Shitty Bear's Corner

29 October, 2010

St. Augustine's Kingdom of Heaven, the promise of eternal ecstasy

Next week we will laying plans for turning St. Augustine's Kingdom of Heaven into a Rave Scene. Rumor has it that we already have a steady supply of MDMA. It is promised that our new bodies will produce the most emasculate constant trans-orgasmic-high(s)*.

*the 's' is in brackets, for it is not certain at this juncture, whether plurality of states will be possible in our new form, or if it even makes sense. There is need to pray for greater understanding, and yet we are counselled against this very thing, this very wish, which is an evil in our hearts. And verily because of this uncertainty the prosaic problem remains in the shadows, lurking in the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of Heaven the Light of Pure Reason, and still there are shadows, places where doubt can play its game. Nor is it certain that with the end of procreation and the emptying of the guff (well of souls) that we will experience sexuality as we know it. This also brings back in the problem of sterility, perhaps even the realization of a trans-homosexuality, inclusive to a sameness in what we once understood as gender, undercutting the promise of ecstasy and pointing towards a lesser Platonic joy. What would (will) Jesus do?

Of course, none of this holds true for Mormons, as the men will all become Creators themselves. Eternally embraced and restored to their family. Death parts, but cannot break the unity of marriage, that which G d cleaved with his Love. But I wonder, is sex still fun? Or is that just something that dirty little creatures do? And if they (the creatures) have a soul, even a world, then its always already on its way to hell.

Material Manifestation of the Living State: douche-go

I had to listen to a talk about a strong State and Ethics. About Hegel and Freud, the realization of Ethics as a quest towards or with an understanding of the universal as some type of Kantian Noumena, which sounded a bit weird considering Hegel. I was under the impression that in Hegel's view he overcomes Kant's flaw(s), expressed explicitly in The Phenomenology of Spirit, but that was not the shit that pissed me off. Nor is it that she is seriously using Freud as psychology, and thinks that that structure still holds, with its repressive function, seemingly oblivious to Lacan reconceptualization of the super-ego, in its duality. No, what pissed me off was the capture by the state, and her just telling a story, which sounded almost exactly like Kleist's tale, Michael Kohlhaas. D&G mention exactly what I saw in her presentation, in their Nomadic War Machine essay. I looked it up after the fact, trying to find out if Hegel responded or even mentioned Kleist in his writings. Yet this girls project!

The way she explained it, if I can summarize what I recall. Basically there is a contract, which is always unjust, the injustice is brought to a head, the illness made worse, as proscribed by Freud as the correct way to proceed in the initial faze of treatment, even though our neurosis is un-curable and treatment interminable. The contract is violated by the capitalist, and the wronged turn to justice which becomes greater, of a higher right or priority, than the right to property, and hence allows through what amounts to criminal, or rather Heroic behavior to make the singularity of each person's symptom as universal, contained within the law, instead of excluded or produced by it, and hence making justice ethical in a way never before. Oh, maybe when the Late Ancient Greeks where around.

As usual its this fairy tale Greek shit. Yet there would be no Sparta or Athens with out much that we would not desire, and why have a word like citizen, unless someone is not a citizen, perhaps they are a slaves. And this shit is not evolutionary theory, Hegel just makes it seem like it is. His trick is the form of the dialectic (a sort of syllogism perhaps) and setting up the terms by emptying them, and then refilling. But because of this the presenter brought in the idea of the Good. And while Rawls does the same shit in his work, by setting the initial condition to give him the desired outcomes, by cutting other avenues of logical outgrowth short, as not to end, unlike Hegel and Kojeve, Qeauneau's, End of History, nor does Rawls depend or require the Good. He does look towards Aristotle but uses a deontological method unlike Hegel, who in this essay, where we have the Good, and a dialectic stacking of the deck. Any way the Greeks are hardly one people, you really need to be specific in my opinion.

So, by showing the inherent injustice of forced affiliation, contract, (which is assumed, as from the gun point of the myth of the state of nature, which she takes for granted as real [enough, for a founding myth], and which had a Hume like tone to it, although I think she mentioned Rousseau, which fits with the inherent yin and yang, yang yin of opposite, for Rousseau, we are born free but in chains, law of man sets us free), and this is accomplished, brought through by individual (?) Heroic measures and action, which successively reaffirmed, until the synthesis and thereby fulfillment (?) of what was an incomplete justice. She had the double negation of the empty self, at first empty, then its singularity (my word) or neurosis (her word) actives being another negation in the realization of universal justice (like absolute justice, in the Hegelian sense) or ethical state. Anyway, I hope I explained it well enough. But of course I let the presenter know that I disagreed...